Report Thematic Conference Hall March 2005

!
"
#
& '
$%
(
)
+,-
*'
./ / 0
This project has been funded with
support from the European
Commission.
1
2
3
& '
#
(
(
'
5
&6 / / 4 &7 / /
&7 /
%
8
;
)
<
8
./ / /
@
(
! "
% 5
5
5
$
$%
$9
,
:
$< 5
)
$'
(
(
)
(
$<
4>
;
2
(
!
=
? >
+
/A //
5
<
B
B
/ A &0
&/
&.
&+
&/ &0
/ ,&. /
/ ,&+ /
/ ,&- /
&- /
&6 / /
&6 /
&7 /
./ / /
>
<
#
<
#
8
C
:
8
:
8
:
D4'
"
"
"
"
"
5
5
&4 0
5 : &4: 0
"
=
5
'
;
< 0/
B
@
(
E B
( 5
!
5
>
"
0
/ A / / ,&/ / /
B
4B
)
(
B
&/ / / ,&/ /
&/ / ,&. /
&. / ,&+ /
&+ / ,&6 / /
&6 / / ,&6 /
&7 / /
:
8
:
#
<
8
@
"
"
5
"
F 4
!
C
3;
D
5
&4 0
#
#
" )
; 5
+4-
./ / 0
5
5
.
1
2
3
& '
'
'
!
#
'
'
"
)
>
'
&
, -/ -/ )
'
3$ G + 0.. 0 6-A
,
5 $**! ! ! 35 "
3 (
H =
+4-
./ / 0
2
(
)
(
1
2
3
& '
(
THU, 3 Mar. 05
5
5
4%
&63/ / 4 &73 /
5
%
%
+4-
5
!
./ / 0
"
5
+
1
2
3
& '
(
THU, 3 Mar. 05
8
!
(
"
5
$
$
<
%
9
<
% 5
,
$'
+4-
./ / 0
$
:
? >
;
2
)
=
(
)
< 5
$
$
(
#
0
1
2
3
& '
(
FRI, 4 Mar. 05
5
<
+4-
>
./ / 0
-
1
2
3
& '
(
FRI, 4 Mar. 05
B
B
<
$'
'
5
5
; 3B
<
I
IJ
'
5
!
5
5
!
(
!
"
./ / 0
(
! "3 %
,>
I
(
>
3'
5
!
>
3
>
!
5
5
> !
!
5
5
+4-
5
K
!
'
5
"
>
!
!I
5
!
>
5
(
5
5
( (
5
3'
5
!
"
3
6
1
2
3
& '
(
FRI, 4 Mar. 05
8
"
5
&&,, 0
Title
Institution
Presenters
A1
Experiences from Finnish school
evaluation
City of Hämeenlinna, FI
Tapani Räikkä
Markku Tuominen
A2
The criteria for a good school
Diocesan Classical
Gymnasium, Lubljana,
Slovenia
Marina Rugelj
Joze Mlakar
A3
Contribution of the Inspectorate to
improve school self-evaluation – the
Portuguese case
Inspecção-General de
Educação, Lisboa, PO
Helder Guerreiro
A4
Evaluation as incentive for
development
Pedagogical Institute Vienna,
AT
Ulrike Lehner-Stift
Christian SchmidWaldmann
Christian Holzmann
Q5 Project – NL
Kees Horsman
A5
+4-
Dutch good practices of internal and
external evaluation
./ / 0
GRG 5, Sec. School, Vienna
7
1
2
3
& '
&$
&$
5
#
' 5
( @
$
% L " " LM
!
'
(
!
5
> 5
(
"
' (
5
'
'
8
>
+4-
"
&3
"
) L(
"" '
(
,@
./ / 0
) L(
D
) L(
5 B
I!
L
(
5
5
5
(
I
55
5
(
I
5
3 8
(
) L(
3'
(
5
3
(
3
( !
(
>
#
,
C
5$
(
5
(
4
.3
(
3'
I ! ,>
3'
(
!
( 5 !
(
!
4
4
,
!
I
!
3
55
"
5
!
3
I
!
4
5
5
>
3
!
(
""
>
#
>
@
5
I!
@
#
(
,
(
N8
( ( >
3
A
1
2
3
& '
(
.$
.$ '
#
%
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
OM 9 =
"
4
I;
<
5
K
5
!
"
5 5 3
O !
E
5
I
5
3
3
!
5
5
5
5
"
> !
3
K
5
!
3
! "
( (
"
>
( 3
3
5 5 3
5
3
(
55
( < >O
"3
!
!
8
J (
(
5
5
3
( 3
,
•
•
'
C5
( $
>
( ( >
D3
(
C
+
5
( C
DI
DI
5
>
<
( O
!
>
>
3
>
!
5 5
>
3
>
5
O
(
3
5
O
(
!
"3
(
I
E
'
5
5
5
(
>
+4-
./ / 0
(
( 5
>
!
5
! (
(
5
I
5
K
5
I
! "
5 O ! "
>
! (
>
5
'
5
3
5
'
(
5
3'
>
I
>
K
!
3
I
I
(
K
>O
K
>O
(
3
!
3
K
K
3
&/
1
2
3
& '
5
( ( >
!
"
!
( I
!
5
=
5 5
>
5
5
5
!
3
" !
!
( (
!
I
(
5
I
!
5
( 5
3'
5
(
(
'
5
(
5
(
5
3'
> !
> !
3'
5
"
"
( (
( (
3
,
(
!
5
*
>
3'
!
5
!
5
! (
>
5
3
"
>
55
(
(
5
(
5
"
3
5
3
> !
>
5
=
(
(
5
>
./ / 0
O
3'
"
5 5
5 5
K
(
"
5
>
(
!
!
3
K
(
5
5
!
(
,5
"
O
(
(
5
5
I
5
( (
5
E
8
'
5
3'
>O
O
( 5
'
<
"
>
3
5
5
5
5
!
!
"
( !
5
>O
"
3'
(
,
+4-
5
3
!
'
(
(
5
3
(
5
(
( (
> >
( 5
5
!
!
! (
3
!
(
>
3
&&
1
2
3
& '
$
>
4
#
#
)
J
5
4#
( (
I
5
( 5
PQ ,J
I
PQ I < >
#
5
,
5
'
'
;
'
$
C
55
>
( 5
,
(
'
(
5
@
>
55
I!
,
(
I
; >
(
I>
(
+4-
./ / 0
"
5
I
>
(
(
!
5
!, !
I
,
( 5 (
>
E
3) !
I
> !
> "
,5
5
!
5
!
5
I
5(
5
5
3'
(
E
< 5
( 5
E !
,
5
O
3
3
(
5
>
5
>
(
I
5
3
,
5
>
3
5
(
( 3
(
>
3
(
I
!
( !
3
E
5
5
5
3'
D
5
(
,
$
(
•
•
•
(
5
!
(
>
E
(
"
5(
3
&.
1
2
3
& '
+$
+$
(
5(
#
" <
,
2
I
I J % J 0I
!
( 5 $
( ,!
!
C >
5
E
+4-
./ / 0
(
,8
I2
3
(
" C
I
I 55
)
I>
=(
4
(
D
5
D3 ;
5
5(
I#
5
*5
( 5
O
3
&
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
&+
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
&0
1
2
3
& '
0$
0$ ;
#
B
5
)
&
(
'
4
I
0, 5 O
3' !
5
!
0#
5
O
5
> 5
!
5
;
5
5
5
I(
5
5(
I 'I
5
5
( (
(
5
(
(
3
5
> ( 3
5
!
>
&-
5 > !
(
!
!
I
>
;
(
3'
5
(
I
(
!
(
(
!
(
0,5
O
5
3
>
!
>
5 !
5(
3
'
!
5
(
3
5
5
'
5
!
+4-
!
3
I
5
!
3
5
!
'
5
5
>
5
&.
"
I5
(
(
@
#
5
>
'
+
3
K
( 3@
>
(
5
"
(
>
'
5
> !
5
53 '
3
'
.
! "
>
>
5
3
5
O
3
> 5
5
!
(
./ / 0
!
> "
5 > !
! > "
! >
! "
K
!
5
5
K
3
!
> "
3
5
"
> !
>
!
5
5
3;
!
>
3
5
!
"
5 !
>
3
&-
1
2
3
& '
(
FRI, 4 Mar. 05
8
"
5 : &&,, : 0
Title
Institution
Presenters
B1
From evaluation models to internal
school policy
Department d’Educació –
Generalitat de Catalunya - ES
Maria Cristina
Pujol,
Josep Gómez
B2
External evaluation … only three
questions.
Dienststelle für Evaluation,
Bozen, IT
Helmuth von
Dellemann
Inge Mahlknecht
B3
More efficiency and quality in
education
Eesti Vabariigi Haridus – ja
Teadusministeerium, Estonia
Maie Kitsing
Kadri Peterson
B4
Internal Evaluation: Students evaluate
teaching
Ministerium der
Deutschsprachigen
Gemeinschaft Belgiens - BE
Marliese Breuer
B5
It’s all a jungle, baby
Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung,
Hessen GER
Carlotte
Dreschert,
Ulrich Steffens,
Wolfgang Höhner
+4-
./ / 0
&6
1
2
3
& '
: &$
&$ @
(
(
(
5
#
3
5
'
!
"
5 !
>
I; 5
5
(
E
5
!
5
5
5
5
!
(
(
!
!
!
(
#
5
./ / 0
"
3
>
+4-
!
( I
(
8
# O I 9 5 J R( =
R 4J
#
3@
38
(
!
! !
( 5 (
>
!
5
5
3
&7
1
2
3
& '
: .$
.$
#
)
'
S
(
;
>
(
I
"
+4-
5
./ / 0
4
!
3
I;
K
H
!
(
#
K
>
"
N) !
N
!
5
(
>
5
(
*
3
( *
N8
3
&A
1
2
3
& '
: $
(
K
#
B
IB
#
4
2 >
'
%
(
K
( 5 (
>
,>
I5 5
3
*
I
I
*
I
(
D
./ / 0
( 5
>
(
(
'
( 3 '
55
( I
I
>
>
(
(
(
+4-
4O '
5
*
(
)
;,
5
!
( 5
(
(
,
(
3:
> C
" 3
./
1
2
3
& '
: +$
+$
(
$
#
:
4:
&AA.I
5
"
(
TI
( (
>
(
(
!
8
( I
5
(
3
:
;
5
,5
J (
:
5
J
>
>
,
!
"I
3
N
T
!
(
8
>
E>
&AA&
5
>
"
5
5
5
(
(
O
5
3
"
T
5
I
K
'
K
I
55
= (
>
I S D3 '
55
32
!
(
3 !
( 5 $
5
C
K
(
3
( 3;
5
(
I!
!
>
5
5
!
(
3
3
>
=
<
<
%
J N8
> 5
>
5
3
!
(
5 I
(
5
EK
J $8
ND : (
3'
K
K
E
5
5
3
) !
'
,
(
%
!
( 5 $
5
!
I
>
!
3
C
>
>
"
!
K
!
"
N
>
5 >
$
5
(
I
(
3
T
K
(
!
5
( 5
(
>
>
3
!
C
CK
$
(
5
N
O
!
(
" DI
4
!
5
5
3'
I
D3
K
5
5
>
> (
5
!
'
•
• :
• J
K
(
( 5
+4-
./ / 0
!
4
N8
>
6
!
5
5 5
4
>O
,(
"
(
N
=
>
5
( &
D3
"
•
K
C!
N8
!
(
3
5
"
I
O
M
M
!
•
"
$
(
8
'
(
N
= $
M
.&
1
2
3
& '
•
5
o
o
o
O
@
#
8
5
!
O
M
" M
! "M
C
"
•
'
(
=
5
M <
D3
$
B
$5
'
5
3 3
8
# 5
J
$ &7
5$
(
*!
(
,5
"
( (
.0
5
,5
$
3
> !
( 5
!
I
( N
$
•
'
•
'
I8
'
!
"
>
!
C
( 5 $
I
I S D3
•
•
(
>
(
5
!
3
! 5
>
•
E
$
!
5
I
N D3
!
,
(
3
I
(
"
(
N8
I
!
5
"I
N8
'
I
(
(
5
3
3
5
5
(
( 3
>
5
>
'
3
$
I
5
C8
•
•
•
%
I '3
5 (
5 5
3
$
5
I
5
!
K
"
(
$
•
•
' !
) !
5 5
5
5
!
"
N
O >N
$
5
(
3
(
(
( I
I!
5
5
I
3
5 5
(
!
>
>
=
( (
=
5
!
(
3
8
•
•
•
+4-
5 !
5
'
./ / 0
5
N
M
5
5
(
M
M
>
K
>
3
..
1
2
3
& '
8
N
•
'
(
'
'
!
•
•
@
(
%
(
K
C
>
(
K
!
5
(
"
>
'
;'
%J
' J %
>
#
@ 8
( 5
5(
I
K
M
>
>
%B ) #
5 O
( 5
(
5
3
#
>
•
•
•
(
DM
!
3
'
) !
) !
5
$
E
(
5
5
(
M
N
"
>
!
O >N
$
•
•
) !
>
8
5
> !
,
!
"
@
,5
•
•
+4-
N8
N8
,
5
"
" " N
5
( (
"
,
5
•
>
N
(
>
>O
>O
3
3
5
(
$
>
5
J
C
(
,(
<
! ! I!
>
>
(
./ / 0
3
!
(
3
>
!
> "
( 5
5
(
5
> !
!
5
I5 > >
, , " ! >
5
(
3
>
ND
>
K
5
!
!
>
E
(
3
3
.
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
.+
1
2
3
& '
: 0$
0$ E
O
(
I> >
#
I8
! "
L
) U
I
;
4J
5
!
(
I
H
I)
&D #
5
O
,>
$
•
•
.D 8
8
5
*
!
(
*
8
5
O
(
K
5
*
*
(
K
*
N
> !
5
5(
5
$
5(
5
K
N
+4-
./ / 0
.0
1
2
3
& '
(
Saturday March 5, 10h30 – 12h30
Title
Institution
Presenters
RISQ – Experiences within a
Comenius 1 Project: Room for
innovation, self-evaluation and quality
Handelsoberschule und
Realgymnasium Sterzing - IT
Corrie Smid Cuel
C2
Internal Evaluation: Steering group
evaluates sustainability of project
days
Ministerium der
Deutschsprachigen
Gemeinschaft Belgiens - BE
Bernd Klever
C3
Example of school-based evaluation
with external consultant: Evaluation
of net-working–forms in secondary
education
PI Tirol, AT
Thomas Mair
C4
External Evaluation of Quality within
the System of European Schools
European School Munich
Susanne Egedal
C1
C5
+4-
Contribution of the Inspectorate to
improve school self-evaluation – the
Portuguese case
./ / 0
Alexander Plattner
GER
Inspecção-General de
Educação, Lisboa, PO
Helder Guerreiro
.-
1
2
3
& '
&$ %
4
I
#
5
,
!
(
O $%
(
K
$
(
@
I
#
! ! 5
I
,
3
( 5
C
D3
'
4)
(
!
(
3
K
!
5
>
%
(
&3 5 O 4 %
5
!
5
O
I!
M
M %
= M:
!
$ : % J &7I
5
( X )
>
,J (
( <
4 J (
(
( I ;
)
(
,
'
(
&0
(
8
!
5 5
!
3
,
!
./ / 0
"
>
!
CV %
!
4 '
(
!
4
,'
<
3
&A3
>
( 5
!
!
55
=
W 4
=
M
"
!
5
(
5
(
(
( M)
!
$5 5
(
(
" 5
2
+4-
&#
(
>
3C
3# 5
(
( 5
,
I
D
!
5
3
.6
1
2
3
& '
.$
5 O
$
#
5
(
>
$
:
B
4:
( I
(
;
5
J (
:
The project work days have been existing for almost 10 years at this school. After several
internal evaluations and adaptations, they build today a firm part of the school project. In the
past, the carrying-out has known many ups and downs. At times, the project work days have
even been completely called into question.
;
(
>
>
5
5 5
! " 5 O 3'
5 O
5
5 5
> 5 5
>
>
5
5 O ( " 3@
I
5 5
5 O
(
-/ 4 6/
5 5
3
5 O
I 5
(
5 O
>
=
(
>
I5
(
I
I
! 5 5 I ( IS
'
$
B
$
'
(
5
8
# 5
$ &. &7
5$
D 5
>
(
$
5 C >
I(
>
I&5 O ,
(
&&/ / 5 5
&./
> ! ( N
$
( 5
5 O ! " C
I
IK
DM
5 I5
5 O
M K
5 (
(
" K
C (
! "I
( 5
I
I!
I
I 5 " I5
I 333D
'
$'
E
5 O ! "
M
> (
( 5
I(
I
= 3'
5 5
5
$
(
M
3'
K
" K
(
3
5$'
5
( 5
5
3'
5 O
!
>
I ( ,
! ",
!
! > " 3
>
I
E
5
"
3
!
5 O
!
= > 5 O ,!
(
3'
(
3
The prevailing circumstances (target, organisation, carrying-out) for a project week became
only clear 5 years later, after a group of more ore less 10 project-convinced teachers had sit in
on a seminar held at a project laboratory school and attended a school-external further
educational course.
At that moment, the steering group was founded. Two years later, a school-internal further
educational course was organized for all teachers and the concept of project work became
evident for everybody. With the foundation of the steering group, an evaluation has been
organized annually directly after the project work days. Every year, new questionnaires have
+4-
*!
./ / 0
.7
1
2
3
& '
(
been worked out, adapted and evaluated. Many times, the results were rather disappointing for
the steering group as a lot of people didn’t participate in the evaluation. This lead to a
sometimes distorted image of the actually done project work and the achieved surplus value.
At the beginning, only teachers evaluated the project days; in the meantime, pupils evaluate as
well the content and the course of the project together with their project-coordinator. The
evaluation by the students is generally done in writing and sometimes even orally directly
after the project work days. A short time later, teachers evaluate in writing the prevailing
circumstances of their project. The coordinator of the steering group analyses the evaluations
– a very laborious task especially for the open questions.
$
! ! "
I5 5
(
3'
(
(
>
3'
"
5
5(
5 O ! "
IK
>
(
I
5 O ! "
> (
I
>
( 5
E
5 O 3
8
•
•
•
•
5 !
5
'
N
5M
,
,
5
5M
5
5
(
>
O
!
"M
(
(
I
M
•
5
5
(
I S DM
(
C 5
•
•
! 5 5 I
5
O
>
I
M
53
8
N
The lasting effect of the project work days is multi-layered and can partly be observed in
secondary phenomena of daily school life:
•
•
+4-
./ / 0
( 5
5
K
( D
I
5
5
,
=
!
"
O
!
5
> 5 5
"
5
5 O M
!
"
>O
I
>
,
3C
.A
1
2
3
& '
@
%
3 #
>3
3
'
;'
%J
>
' J %
#
@ 8
5
%B )
#
O
( 5
5(
I
(
( 5
(
5
!
K
3
$
•
) !
!
= 5
( >
•
•
•
•
•
O
!
( 5
,> " C
" 5
5 5
) !
8
) !
8
8
(
(
N
( >
D
5
5
N
>
(
5
(
!
> N
N
( ,
K
5
55
K
>
N
( 5 N
$
•
) !
5
>
•
8
5
3 #
3
3
+4-
./ / 0
>
N 8
N
> !
,
" " N
,
!
"
(
N 8
>
5
!
!
"
5
/
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
&
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
.
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
1
2
3
& '
$
( 5
,>
,!
#
$'
'
'
(
"
4
!
,
$
(
I#L
'
5$
K
I
>
"
( 5 I
( 5
! "
./ / 0
I
>
I!
S
5
5
C&D
C.D ;
C D
!
" 5
3
8
+4-
(
5
( 5
( 5
$8
I
!
3
*5
"
(
(
N
>
+
1
2
3
& '
+$
!
#
#
$
I)
(
4; (
5
(
5
>O
5
+4-
(
./ / 0
5 I
:
" *J
(
I
5
5
$
5
(
(
5
I
I
(
3
0
1
2
3
& '
0$
>
#
$)
5
J
4#
( 5
I
5
PQ ,J
(
,
PQ I < >
Short summary: In the most recent years, the Portuguese Inspectorate of Education has
launched a set of activities intended to enhance school self-evaluation. Three of them will
shortly be described in the current presentation:
– The Integrated (and integral) Evaluation of Schools.
– The Appraisal of School Self-evaluation.
– A Database of Students’ Attainment.
The first example consists in a process of external evaluation. However, the non-punitive
character of these inspections, the interaction that was established between school
representatives and the teams of inspectors, the inspectors’ handbooks and the school reports,
provided schools with some instruments and know-how that they could use to set up a
structured internal evaluation system.
The second consists in a meta-evaluation process, in which inspectors evaluate the evaluation
designed and implemented by the school itself. It is an activity drawn upon recent legislation
and it is inspired in some meta-evaluation initiatives, such as the ESSE and SEQuALS
projects. Its main contribution to the development of school self-evaluation resides in the
assumptions and approach, which have a pedagogic purpose. This activity raises school
actors’ awareness and self-esteem and it is inductive of systematic evaluation.
@
I
; >
E
(
5
>
E
(
I>
5
>
>
( "
(
5
(
5
!
(
5(
3
+4-
./ / 0
-
1
2
3
& '
(
SAT, 5 Mar. 05
B
.
B
)
B
(
3;
5
+4-
./ / 0
6
1
2
3
& '
(
SAT, 5 Mar. 05
8
+4-
./ / 0
F
7
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
A
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
+/
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
+&
1
+4-
2
3
& '
./ / 0
(
+.
1
2
3
& '
'
5$
'
+4-
./ / 0
I
$
" I'
(
(
) 39
+
1
2
3
& '
(
'
=
+4-
./ / 0
++
1
2
3
& '
(
<
+4-
./ / 0
+0