In these times of rapid globalization and education transformation which is resulting in unprecedented change, it is imperative that principals, teachers and all educationists rise to face the continuous challenges of the forces of change which are impacting on education- from expectations of student capabilities to face the challenge of a globalized world, to changes in curriculum and delivery method. They need to understand and embrace change to be able to manage it so as to sustain the educational reform that follows change, a reform process that must ensure success for all students in the new education environment. Cohen (1982 in Silver, 1994) draw attention of five factors that affect school effectiveness-strong administrative of leadership, a school climate conducive to learning, emphasis on basic skills, teacher’s expectation that pupils ‘can reach high levels of achievement’ regardless of their background, and assessment of pupils’ performance. Assessment measures the outcome of an educational process rather than the process itself. To achieve this outcome, monitoring and inspecting was very essential. Inspection is an inevitable part of school life. From a child’s first day at school to the day that he or she leaves full-time education the current political agenda follows the view that educational achievement must be accounted for, and those at the front line or this accountability, in the eyes of ones with responsibility to provide an educational service, are teachers (Holmes,2009,p.1)
Hillman and Stoll (1994: 2) define it as ‘the sustained and systematic quest for the enhancement of pupil learning, in which strategic planning, goal setting and the development of a learning culture for all enables the school to both absorb and react to the rapidity of change within the post-modern world’. According to Richards (2001) ‘inspection involves observing work in schools, collecting evidence from a variety of other sources and reporting judgements...judgements about the significance and worth of what is observed, collected and reported. It is not simply a means of judging a school’s compliance with government objectives or directives in any straightforward way. It involves the making ( and justification) of quantitative judgements.’
Inspection means to witness or verify the quality and standard of teaching, school system management and conditions of education resources befitting its potential, prospects and projection of returns (Dato’ Abdul Rahim Tahir, 2002). Inspection has been a part of school life since formal education began, and undoubtedly will continue to be central to education policy for the foreseeable future. Inspection can be seen less as an inevitable hurdle in school life, and more as a valuable tool in development (Ibid,p.2). It is hoped that this paper will enable teacher to expand their comfort zone to the concern zone . Better still, they may inspire in our positive and creative responses. We are all very different from each other in our perceptions, our strengths and our aptitudes, and so there can be no magic fix to suit all for professional anxieties we may face.
School Inspection In the United Kingdom
The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) is officially the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief of Schools in England. It was set up on September 1st, 1992. Being independent from the Department for Education and Employment, and any other goverment department, Ofsted is non-ministerial. OFSTED provides advice to minister, information by inspection evidence, and is responsible for school inspection of childcare and early years of education. OFSTED inspection are not designed to help individual schools to do better job, they are designed to a judgement about the quality of the job which they currently doing. The Educational (Schools) Act 1991 defines the independent system of school inspection. Ofted’s remit is to manage and administer this system. HM Inspector (HMI) are permanent inspection staff of Ofsted. As well as playing key roles in inspecting and reporting on schools, HMI also inspect independent schools, teacher training and local education authority services. In September 1993, the first inspection in secondary schools took place, followed one year later by inspection in primary and special schools, and in Autumn 1996 by inspection of Pupil Referral Units. School inspections are governed by section 10 of the School Inspection Act 1996 which are amended by the Education Act 2002. As a process, inspection involves more than observing, collecting evidence and reporting.
The law requires all maintained and certain independent schools to be inspected regularly. It is required that, schools will be inspected at least once within four years after the previous inspection. However, inspections will be done at any time if it is felt necessary. By July 1998, all schools had been inspected at least once. As we know it today (Offices for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills rather than the office for Standards in Education), is non-ministerial government body headed by the chief inspector of schools. Its job is to inspect all state schools and report on standards of achievement. Its role also includes the inspection of further education, local authority children’s services, teacher training institutions and some independent schools.
Inspection Since 2005
The new form of school inspection was introduced in September 2005. The main elements of the new system, as laid out in Section 5 (s5) of the Education Act 2005, can be summarised as follows:
· shorter notice of inspections (usually two days’ notice)
· smaller inspection teams
· more frequent inspections (a maximum of three years between inspections)
· a new and greater emphasis on the school’s own self-evaluation evidence
· a common framework for inspection across all phases of education
· shorter, sharper reports, with clear recommendations for improvement.
This new approach to inspection was located in the broader context of a ‘New Relationship’ which was being sought between the DfES, local authorities (LAs) and schools (DfES/Ofsted, 2004). Relationship’ which was being sought between the DfES, local authorities (LAs) and schools (DfES/Ofsted, 2004). In addition to the new inspection arrangements, the elements of this relationship included: a greater emphasis on self-evaluation (including the recommended completion, by schools, of an online Self-Evaluation Form, or SEF); the use of School Improvement Partners to support and challenge schools within the context of a ‘single conversation’ about school improvement; and the School Profile, a document which replaces
the Annual Governors’ Report and provides high-quality information to parents and the general public.(Ofsted,2006)
Education Act 2005 outlined six keys areas where inspectors were required to report on:
• Quality of education provided
• How the education provided by the school meets the learning needs of the range of students at the school
• Educational standards achieved
• Leadership and management
• Spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.
• The contribution made by the school to the well being of the students.
Also covered in the inspection is the school’s attention to the five outcomes for children and young people as set out in Every Child Matters. (Ofsted,2006)
In early 2006 Ofsted commissioned NFER to conduct the first strand of an independent, detailed focussed evaluation of how the inspection process and outcomes impact on school effectiveness. This pilot work involved a survey, with a random sample of 134 schools, and case-study visits to 36 schools, where interviews were conducted with senior managers and governors. All schools were inspected in the period October to December 2005. This study will be followed by a more in-depth second strand which will commence in September 2006.
The new school inspection system introduces new methods of inspection. The impact of this policy, the inspectors are able to see the school in its normal situation instead of in its pretentious state that is typical throughout the year. The on-site inspection process by smaller team is also shortenend, as a result of this the task of inspectors was more focus. Inspectors more focusing on the outcomes for pupils- 5 outcomes of Every Child Matters :being healthy,staying safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and economic well-being,
and how effective is the school in promoting them.
In addition to the new inspection arrangements, the elements of this relationship included: a greater emphasis on self-evaluation (including the recommended completion, by schools, of an online Self-Evaluation Form, or SEF); the use of School Improvement Partners to support and challenge schools within the context of a ‘single conversation’ about school improvement; and the School Profile, a document which replaces the Annual Governors’ Report and provides high-quality information to parents and the general public.(McCrone,2006 p.1)
According to the Ofsted booklet making the most of inspection, inspection should provide schools with “an independent assessment of what you need to know: how well your school is doing, what strengths and weaknesses there are, and what needs to improve”
School assessment is a means to provide information as to whether a school is performing well or not as well as a measure of the outcomes of an education process, to what extent transfer of knowledge is being achieved and how much pupils have learned. Inspection is one of the main means by which this is achieved. Inspections have critical bearings for teachers and schools.
The main purposes of having school inspection (OFSTED,2003) are that:-
i) it provides the evaluation of the quality and educational standards of the education achieved by the school;
ii) the inspection reports will be able to tell the school, students, parents and the community how well the school has achieved and also can help the school to improve;
iii) it enables the Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools in England (HMCI) annual report sent to Parliament on the quality and standards of education is based on all inspections made in the previous academic year.
School inspections are done by registered inspectors who work with team of inspectors. Inspectors must be of qualification endorsed by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) to take the lead responsibility for the inspection and reporting of particular subjects and courses. The maximum time allocated for inspection is four days (or five days in school with sixth forms).
In Malaysia , the evaluation is in accordance with the principles of GST (General Systems Theory which views the school social system. The construction of Higher Standard Quality Education (HSQE) was informed by GST. The Inspectorate of Schools anticipates problems and uncertainties of HSQE among head teachers, teachers, supporting staff, district and state education officers and the public at large. To ensure a smooth and effective implementation of HSQE, the Inspectorate of Schools has published five documents for their use and reference. The five publications are:
i) Higher standard quality education policy statement;
ii) Higher standard quality education statement;
Instrument for self-assessment based on higher standard;
iii) Quality education;
iv) Instrument for inspection of higher standard quality education; Internal quality auditing
In addition to the above publications, the Inspectorate of Schools has prepared a Manual for installation of higher standard quality education and its schedule for publication.
HSQE Policy Statement
The premise underpinning the development of HSQE is to provide an opportunity for schools to reach their full potentiality and capacity, in order to facilitate the development of full potential and capacity of every pupil. It is also points to the needs and demands that schools and pupils have to be motivated and equipped with the capacities and capabilities to contribute effectively to nation-building and the world around. The policy statement was created purposefully to explain the concept, goals and conduct of the installation and operation of HSQE.
The standard statement prescribes eight imperatives with sixteen elements for efficient and effective management of the school system. It is important that head teacher, teachers and person responsible for the management of the school system scrutinize, understand and internalize each of the sixteen elements before implementing them. HSQE standards comprise eight ‘imperatives’ covering areas such as mission and vision, organizational system, organizational climate, strategic planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement, information and school products. These are broken down into sixteen ‘elements’ or school performance indicators covering such aspects as educational structure and functions, management, resources, rewards system, short- and long-term planning, analysis of educational programmes, lesson plans, homework, etc. It is important to note that the ‘school product’ imperative refers to the ‘development of pupils’ potential at the end of: pre-school, level 1 of primary education, level 2 of primary education, lower secondary, and upper secondary’. Potential is determined on the basis of pupils’ performance in the internal school tests and the various centralized examinations. Thus, as envisaged in policy, examination or achievement data is one of the indicators to be used in evaluating school performance.
Expected standards of inspectors
The standards expected of inspectors are laid out first and foremost in Quality Assurance Standards that is required of contractors. The Ofsted Handbook Making the Most Inspection explain the Quality of Assurance Standard requires that:
1. Inspectors are appropriately qualified, experienced and trained to inspect the school: they have no connection with the school such that would undermine their objectivity.
2. Before the inspection starts, the lead inspector talks to the staff, explain the inspection process and answer questions, and meets with parents to seek their views of the school; the team is familiar with the context of the school and has read the relevant school documents.
3. Inspectors establish positive relationships with staff, pupils and governors. They observe lessons, look at pupils’ previous work and talk to pupils; they discuss aspects of the work of the school with members of staff and listen to their views.
4. Inspectors provide clear developmental feedback on all the judgements they have made; individual teachers are given feedback on their teaching and co-ordination tasks they undertake; evidence used in order to reach judgements is an opportunity for discussion.
5. The report already clearly states the judgement made and reflects what was conveyed to staff orally at the end of the inspection.
The full inspection is what the majority of teachers experience during their careers. The aspects of school’s functioning and are reported on; and individual teachers receive a profile of inspectors’ judgements on their work, as well as verbal feedback or at the either during or at the end of an inspection. In the School Inspection Act 1996, which stated that the inspectors must report on:
· Educational standards in the school.
· The quality of education provided
· The management of financial resources
· The spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils
The latest Ofsted Report (2009) stressed more on Outcomes for individuals and groups of pupils. The seven judgements are: the five Every Child Matters (ECM) outcomes, behaviour, the pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Inspectors also responsible to evaluate pupils attainment. The important point of Ofsted report, the judgements should not be made solely on the basis of one year’s test and examination results. Inspectors have to evaluate:
n how well pupils acquire knowledge, develop their understanding, learn and practise skills and are developing their competence as learners across a range of subjects
n how well pupils enjoy their learning as shown by their interest, enthusiasm and engagement across a range of subjects (Ofsted, 2009)
The grading systems and judgement of inspectors during inspection were expressed on 4 point scales that is:
· Outstanding (1)
· Good (2)
· Satisfactory (3)
· Inadequate (4).
Contribution of the inspection to school improvement
The survey showed a clear perception that the inspection’s main contribution to school improvement was its value in helping schools to prioritise actions, rather than in highlighting new areas for action. However, there was a strongly positive response to the statement that ‘the inspection had made a valuable contribution to school improvement’. The positive attitude to the inspection’s contribution was especially strong amongst schools graded 1 (86 per cent),
while 70 per cent of schools graded 2 agreed and 59 per cent of schools graded 3 agreed. Most respondents thought the inspection had already contributed to improvements in their school to some extent and schools were positive about the likely contribution in the future, with the higher-graded schools most optimistic. Although the inspection was not overtly perceived to be a major
direct contributor to school improvement, it had been important in affirming the school’s successes and self-evaluation, giving impetus and direction to actions, and in boosting staff morale.(McCrone,2006)
Self evaluation is central to the new inspection arrangements. For school inspections the SEF serves as the main document when planning the inspection and is crucial in evaluating the quality of leadership and management and the school’s capacity to improve. The SEF helps to make the inspection sharper and more helpful while still providing evaluations against a national framework. (Ofsted.gov.uk) The shift towards greater self-management in schools has raised the pressure for schools to take increased responsibility for their own development, progress, monitoring and review of overall provision, including standards. Whether this increased level of autonomy fosters school improvement, has been questioned by some (for example, Bush, 1996). On the other hand, Holly and Southworth (1989) argue that self-evaluation is the corner stone of school development and the learning school approaches evaluation as a whole-school, internally-generated endeavour (Nixon et al., 1996). Here, for our purposes, school improvement includes the development of a culture that supports individual teacher learning, team learning and overall organizational learning. In other words, by preparing for external inspection through self-evaluation, is the school moving towards developing a learning organization culture.
According to (Ferguson et al, 1998); OFSTED should continue to look into how inspections can contribute to school improvement. An approach to the development of ‘self-inspecting’ schools is needed in which every school is ready for self-evaluation and improvement. Thus OFSTED pilot inspection using self-evaluation form (SEF) in 2004 was introduced. As for the SEF, apparently there are a number of benefits could be realised in using it as follows:
i) SEF leads to the improvement and development of the school while the inspectors’ inspection will focus on accountability aspect of the school.
ii) Will avoid ‘pre-inspection panic’ amongst the head teachers, teachers and staff and avoid ‘the post-inspection blues’ such as the frustration and finger pointing.
iii) Create a sense of responsibility for continuous monitoring of school attainment including pupils progress. It is important for check and balance purposes leading to school improvement and prioritizing targets and strategies.
iv) Allows school for flexibility to use consultant for advice will lead to accuracy of evaluation and professional advice.
Self-evaluation enables schools to identify the less important matters and focus on the more important ones that are likely to affect tremendously the schools’ future direction. Similarly external inspectors may, after having been identified of the more pressing matters to deal with following the initial self-assessment by the schools themselves, have to confine it to only addressing issues pertaining to public accountability.
The OFSTED new inspection strategy can be regarded as promoting schools’ accountability for public fund that is allocated to them and that is spent wisely. The self-evaluation (inspection) is intended to also provide schools with opportunities to demonstrate that they are accountable to their stakeholders who are the Local Authority, parents, community and sponsors. The evaluation process may also produce results that are advantageous to the school in terms of garnering supports, and financial assistance of stakeholders. The report from OFSTED will be disseminated to the parents and governors from its school as a part of their National Programme of school inspection.
The new system allows for outsourcing of services of the professionals who would undertake the evaluation roles, provided they meet the qualification set by the governing body, in this case, the OFSTED. The OFSTED self-evaluation requirement demands that the schools would have to undergo a great deal of observations and discussions among head teachers, governors, parents and fellow colleagues.
The new strengths on self evaluation and education facilities being in the best position to make improvement and development according to their findings. Including self evaluation by education facilities as central to the new inspection arrangements. The head teacher is responsible for ensuring the self evaluation includes all key stakeholders: leadership team, middle leaders, teachers, support staff, learners, governing body, parents and community. Shorter inspection time, two days, in education facilities eg: schools. The shorter inspection means Ofsted can see schools as they really are. Feedback received from 2000 new style inspections indicated positiveness about the short notice and nearly all head teachers thought the judgement made was fair and accurate. (Land, 2006, p.2).
While the weaknesses are the head teacher is responsible for ensuring the self evaluation includes all key stakeholders: leadership team, middle leaders, teachers, support staff learners, governing body, parents and community. With the inspection reduced to two days this places a burden on schools and requires inspectors to make an instant judgement. The new sharper emphasis seems to reflect a policy which has narrowed the curriculum and minimised important aspects of school life ie: the child and their learning. (Ofsted,p.16)
Against the indicators measured, the whole range of educational monitoring which includes the National Curriculum, testing, the work of Ofsted and other interventions has caused performance to improve since the late 1980’s. However, whether the indicators the regime employs are correct or meaningful can be disputed. (McAvoy, 2003, p.3).
Schools inspection feedback.
My findings through asking Mark Bishop, Headteacher of Trinity School, East Croydon about his school’s inspection. To him the inspection is too short of the time that is 3 days, then 6 of them couldn’t have a wide range of observation for all the staff. Only 30 members of staff can be observed. So the judgement cannot be fair to everybody and not that accurate because its depend on whom he observed. If he observes someone who are below standard then the school has to face the consequence. The inspections team should look for more details on the core business not only to fill up the form that is taking up a long time. They should see 85% of staff not only 30 staff. Two days is too short for them to give a fair and accurate judgment. It also depends on who is the team leader. If the team leader is an experience one then the school will get better judgment. If the headteacher gives any suggestion for improvement, there will be taken action. So the school is still facing the same way of inspection. Lately, there is tendency for the inspector to listen to the pressure group from the parents. This is a bad sign that will create unhappiness between school and parents.
While John Szynal , vice principal teaching and learning, Greensward Academy, Hockley comments about Osfted. He agreed that the process of OFSTED methodology is fair and accurate. The team of 4 person will observe 20 teachers from various department. He explained about the process of self evaluation. The observation done 3 times a year by 3 deferent people. Self evaluation was built in accelerate achievement program. Every observation can easily gave feed back to the teacher from this program. Every new teacher will be given training about the teaching and learning based on OFSTED requirement. Teaching and learning process emphasis on every child matter (ECM)- enjoying achievement, staying safe, being healthy, achieve economic well-being and make a position contribution. Ofsted do not emphasis on teaching planning record. They concerned on how the teaching and learning achieve the objective and student outcomes lot from teaching and learning process.
Mr. James Ketley, vice principal curriculum talked on timetabling, curriculum and assessment. My findings are the school practice flexible timetabling. They introduce program on work experience to year 10 and year 11 but it is not compulsory. Process of inspection for two days, they(team of inspectorate) will meet as a group of senior leadership team to discuss their achievement based on SEF. Then most of the time they observed almost 50% of the teaching staff. They will get all the proof from the head of departments. OFSTED very concern on the attainment of the students and students’ quality learning. To him the process of inspection is fair and accurate judgement.
ATL (2008) concluded that, ‘The quality and expertise of inspectors will be even more vital to ensure that these inspections give useful information and offer value for money. Finally, Ofsted should take responsibility for the impact of its regime on teachers’ professional lives year-round, by making much clearer its requirements. This would go a long way to limit the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy (detailed lesson planning, constant observation and grading of lessons) that is expected of many teachers in the name of Ofsted.’
The findings show that the oral feedback stage is of crucial importance to schools. School manages appreciated the opportunity to ask questions and to conduct a dialogue about the inspection process.The majority of respondents felt that the written inspection report was fair and accurate. However, some schools found the report and its recommendations to be too generalized and a small minority experienced disagreement with the findings. The main contention centred on the use (or lack of use) of data. (Ofsted,2006)
School Self-Evaluation in Malaysia
The transformation of inspection services in Malaysia is aimed at stimulating a culture of accountability, support and greater participation of school actors in evaluating school performance and thus contributing to quality improvement. As part of the HSQE process, schools are expected to engage in ‘self-assessment’ and ‘internal quality auditing’. For its self-assessment, the school is required to use School Self Appraisal instrument, which allows it to identify and assess issues, problems and challenges that may hinder its performance. The information derived from this self-assessment is to be used by the school to rank its current performance on a seven-point scale, ranging from extremely weak (score 1) to par excellence (score 7). This enables the school to determine its take-off value. The school is also expected to use this information to formulate its improvement and development plan; the school uses the Internal Quality Auditing (IQA) developed in terms of HSQE; to review progress and prepare for the external inspection by the Inspectorate of Schools.
The new processes and instruments in place for school self-evaluation are an important start in developing a more holistic approach to school evaluation on Malaysia. It gives school personnel a greater stake in engaging in a key activity for quality improvement. However, other school stakeholders, such as parents, play a little or no role in evaluation. While all schools have parent teacher associations, these bodies provide support and resources and are not involved in administration and management nor in any other school decision-making processes, including evaluation.
Key challenges in transforming school evaluation in Malaysia so that the process is more holistic, attends to accountability and support functions, and is directly linked to school quality improvements:
1. While schools are being afforded greater autonomy (which includes participation in evaluating their performance and developing local accountability), the interest and capacity to do so is not always up to the task. Furthermore, some teachers are reluctant to adopt school improvement advice arising from the inspections or even self-assessment.
2. Transforming a culture of inspection that is based on control and compliance to regulations takes time and commitment. Many officials may be reluctant to cede powers that they have enjoyed for a long time, and may see the new system of evaluation as undermining.
Despite these and other challenges that exist, attempts at creating a more holistic and appropriate system of school evaluation geared towards individual pupil, school and systemic improvement are well under way in Malaysia.
Standard Assurance Instrument Users Guide
In Malaysia a special task force known as the school inspectorates was set up to oversee the implementation of policies and also the upgrading of the quality of education. This task is directly answerable to Director of Schools and also Ministry of Education. The school inspectorates are given the task to ensure that all schools adheres to the guidelines set by the Ministry of Education in terms of imparting knowledge and also in the examination of the schools and other educational institution under the Ministry of Education. Suggestions and recommendations will be given to the schools concerned to achieve a higher standard in education.
In early 2001, the Inspectorate of Schools (IOS) introduced a system to ensure continual
improvement in the quality of education in Malaysian schools. This was known as the
Standard for High Quality Education Assurance System, or better known as Standard for
High Quality Education. This system was formulated in accordance with the Education Act
1996, subsection 117(a) which stipulates that the Chief Inspector of Schools shall be
responsible for ensuring that an adequate standard of teaching is developed and maintained
in educational institutions.
Two years after the implementation of the Standard for High Quality Education, a review was carried out taking into consideration policy changes such as:
a. Amendments in the Education Act 1996
b. National Pre-school Education Curriculum
c. Compulsory Education
d. Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in English
e. Initiatives to enhance the quality of national schools
f. School-based Oral Assessments (Bahasa Melayu and English Language)
g. Amendments in the Malaysian Higher School Certificate grading system.
Since 2003 HSQE was revised and renamed Standard for Quality Education in Malaysian Schools (SQEMS). SQEMS consists of 4 dimensions namely, future direction of leadership, organizational management, educational programme management and transformation of pupils. In addition, twelve elements was introduced to support the above dimension such as vision and mission; school leadership; school organization structure; school planning; school environment; resource management; information management; curriculum, co-curricular and student affair management programme; teaching and learning; pupils ethic development; evaluation of pupil’s achievement and student transformation in academic, co-curricular and ethic. The crucial challenge to further effect and affect implementation of standards in the Malaysian education system will be through realigning the functions of the various divisions into proper structural system so that linkages and interfaces among them create symbiotic synergy that can transform the education system into one that produces world-class K-workforce. ( Rahim,2004)
Both UK and Malaysia have their own approaches and strategies in educating its population with the hope that at the end of the day the people of both nations will be torch bearers of the future and brings success to the nation. The professional development ‘mindset’ is the greatest tool any teacher can have in the quest to improve in their work. More effective than money, it’s the kind of attitude which helps you to gain from every situation and constantly consider how learning opportunities can feed back into your life and work. Successful and sustainable professional development is dependent on an attitude of mind and the fact that you have identified this puts you a head of many.(Holmes, 2007,p.150-151) Hargreaves (1995) has observed, “Inspection is a form of quality control and the trouble with quality control is that it merely monitors the failure rate or the site of failure but does nothing itself to put the fault right. Japanese industry has succeeded in part because it dropped quality control in favor of quality assurance, which returns to the workforce the responsibility for quality.
The new inspection methodology and the report in England and Wales as well as in Malaysia, if professionally executed, will provide a reliable information about the school’s educational standards, the quality of the education, the quality of leadership and management which will include the financial management and also the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils in the school. Although there are challenges in the school inspection methodologies, however the outcomes of this inspection will benefit the school, head teachers, senior management team, teachers, pupils and stakeholders in enhancing the school management. The school management include curriculum management, co-curricular management, student affairs management, human resource management, financial management, office management, infrastructure management, community management and ICT management
Malaysia had been colonized by British Empire for hundreds of years before its independence in 1957. The similarities and differences in the educational system in both Malaysia and UK may be due to the past influence and also the mission and vision of both nations in the present. However, both countries have a main objective which is to see their nation move forward and be competitive in their own region and globally. As a fast developing country, Malaysia should learnt more from the best practices of UK Educational system. This is one of the purpose I was send to UK by my government. I’m sure my government is striving hard to upgrade its educational system by promoting its own identity in achieving its goal of becoming world class education within the ASEAN region and also globally.
The jury is still out on whether performance management will eventually make a difference to schools and whether it will lead to a greater degree of performance related pay. Its effectiveness will depend on the extent that schools succeed in making it an acceptable part of the culture, and this in turn will depend upon the skill with which team leaders at all levels are able to lead and support their teams. Performance management has a great deal of potential. It remains to be seen whether the potential will be realized. (Dean,2002)
In Malaysia, the implementation and development of education over the next five years, and further ahead as we pick up momentum in the pursuit of a developed nation status by 2020, proper leadership and guidance are crucial to ensure the journey forward accelerates leaps and bounds. The borderless environment we live in today necessitates a dire need to produce global knowledge workers with enhanced skills and expertise who can make UK and Malaysia progressive, prosperous and competitive in the new environment that the nations is driving towards.
As a head teacher, we can use the findings from the school inspection as a tool to boost our school management. Managing infection tasks is a continuous process and a manual approach will no longer work to bridge the changing paradigms of the education systems in UK and Malaysia. The use of Ofsted and SQEM report can enhance the productivity and efficiency of education managers as they manage increasing information growth and continuous changes in education policies. However, these education managers have to be competent and proficient to be able to used advanced system to their optimum. Monitoring, evaluating and inspecting are on going work in progress that can never be said to be completed during our working life. Now, Ofsted are using Investors in People (IiP) as a way to manage the many changes taking place and as part of their strategic plan priority: ‘Better ways of working – delivering results through people’.
Association of Teachers and lecturers (2008)–the education union,London
Clegg, D., and Billington,S.(1994)Making the Most of your Inspection: Secondary, Falmer Press, London.
Dato’ Abdul Rahim bin Tahir, (2002). External School Inspections as a Form of School Evaluations, presented at the ANTRIEP International Seminar on School Evaluation for Quality Improvement, Kuala Lumpur.
Dato’ Abdul Rahim Bin Tahir, (2004): Key Factors in Effective Implementation of Education Standards and Quality Assurance: The Malaysian Experience.
Dean,J (2002)Implementing Performance Management: A handbook for schools,Routledge Falmer,2002
Dean,J. (1992) Inspecting and Advising : A handbook for inspectors, advisers and advisory teachers, Routledge London and New York.
Griffin,J.(1999a) Inspecting and reporting-why and how? .In A.Lowe,(ed.)The LEA Adviser and Inspector: Changing Demands, Changing Role. Longman UK.
Hargreaves,D.H.(1995) Inspection and School Improvement, Cambridge Journal of Education,25,1:117-25
Holmes, E.(2000) School Inspection: A teacher’s guide to preparing, surviving & evaluating Ofsted Inspection,The Stationery Office, London.
Holmes, E.(2009) FAQS for School Inspection :Practical advice and working solutions, Routledge.
Holmes,E.(2000) School inspection: A teacher’s guide to preparing, surviving & evaluating Of Inspection,The Stationery Office
John Dean, Inspecting and Advising: A handbook for inspectors, advisers and advisory teachers,Routledge ,New York,1992
Kate Mysers edited by(1996), Schools Make A Difference Project, RoutledgeFalmer, London and NY
Mcrone,T.,Rudd,P.,Blenkins,S.,Wade,P.,(2006) Impact of Section 5 inspection: maintained schools in England(2005) Nfer
Ofsted ,(2006) – Backgroud, Previous,Current, Strengths and Weaknesses,
Ofsted, (2003). Inspecting Schools Framework for Inspecting School.
Ofsted, (2009) The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, London .;
Planning Improvement: Schools” post-inspection plans-A report from the Office of Office of Her Majestys Chief Inspector of Schools, London: HMS 1996
Plowright, D.(2007 ) Self-evaluation and Ofsted Inspection: Developing an integrative Model of School Improvement, Educational Management Administration of Leadership,Sage Pub. London.
Richards, C,(2001) School Inspection: A Re-appraisal, Journal of Philosophy of Education,Vol.35,No.4 Research paper-detailed
School Improvement after Inspection? School and LEA Responses, Earley, P. (1998)(ed.) Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd London.
Standard Assurance Instrument Users Guide ( SQEMS 2)
Taylor Fitz-Gibbon,(1998) Monitoring Education: Indicators, Quality and Effectiveness, Cassell, London.
Wilcox,B. & Gray,J.(1996) Inspecting Schools: holding schools to account and helping schools to improve,Open University Press,Burkingham .
 My school placement 1.
 My School placement 2.