Introduction
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.
HSQE Statement
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.
Full 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
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.[1] 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.[2]
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.
HSQE Statement
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)
The comparison
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
Conclusion
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’.
REEFERENCES
(Ofsted,)http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/schools/sef.cfm.
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 .;
OFSTEoO
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 .
[1] My school placement 1.
[2] My School placement 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment