Richard Bruton
Question:4 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason he has decided that no comparison of schools either locally or nationally will be undertaken in the process of school evaluation. [7638/98]
Priority Questions. - School Evaluation.
I take it that the Deputy is referring to a pilot project on whole school evaluation, the first phase of which has just commenced in a small number of primary and second level schools. The main focus of whole school evaluation, or WSE, is on the development of the individual school being evaluated. The report on a school will include advice on how best this may be accomplished. The WSE process views each school as the most powerful agent in its own development. Detailed draft evaluation criteria have been prepared in order to ensure a reliable and consistent approach to whole school evaluation throughout the system. These criteria cover all aspects of WSE including learning, teaching, planning and management. The draft evaluation criteria have been made available to the schools in the pilot project. Schools can, therefore, use these objective criteria for self-evaluation and to compare their own internal judgments with the external WSE evaluation. The use of agreed evaluation criteria also has potential to yield objective and dependable data on the broad functioning of the education system at national level.
In comparing schools there is an implicit assumption that like will be compared with like in a fair and consistent manner. However, schools may differ significantly one from another in terms of their pupil enrolment, in the range of abilities and personal characteristics of their pupils, in their staffing and in their academic organisation and teaching approaches. Such variable school context factors can account for differences in outcomes among schools.
Comparisons made between schools generally refer only to differences in outcomes and rarely to the underlying explanatory causes of these differences, and this in turn leads to incorrect assumptions being made about the effectiveness of schools. In addition, comparisons between schools' outcomes always focus on those aspects of schooling which are most easily measured and ultimately lead to calls for the formation of league tables. These comparisons and league tables have potentially negative consequences for schools. Important areas of schooling less amenable to measurement and quantification, such as the development of pupil attitudes or the expressive and affective side of learning, may not receive sufficient emphasis in curriculum design and implementation in schools.
The model of whole school evaluation being developed in consultation with the partners has the capacity to encourage and support schools and to promote effective school development. While schools will be able to measure their education achievements against national evaluation criteria, the crude and superficial nature of league tables has no place in my policy for school improvement. WSE will be an important element in the inspectorate's supportive and advisory role in relation to quality development in schools. Many schools currently engage in development practices, such as whole-school planning and school self-review, aimed at improving the quality of education they offer. The WSE process will affirm existing good practice in this area and will assist and support all schools in their quality improvement efforts.
Will the Minister agree that to say comparison is not central to the process of evaluation flies in the face of the experience of virtually every other organisation? Is he not aware that the total quality management procedures in place in other organisations examine how one organisation compares to another and asks why they differ? Does he agree also that the stimulus derived from comparison with what is happening outside is essentially a stimulus to perform better? For example, a crucial question in comparing how schools are doing is the resources available to them. We should compare how schools differ in regard to access to psychological, remedial or other resources. Will the Minister agree that if we want to examine the way different schools perform using different methods and whether some methods are more successful we would have to compare what is happening in one school with another? In short, is the Minister not throwing out the baby with the bath water in that his resistance to league tables, which have a bad reputation for good reason, will result in him disregarding the whole concept of comparison which is a fatal flaw in his proposals?
I reject that. We are resolutely opposed to league tables because in comparing schools one is not comparing like with like. The concept of comparison is part of the whole school evaluation pilot project we are embarking upon, but it is comparison with national objective data and criteria developed by the inspectorate. That is the crucial point. We are not going down the road of comparing one school in one community with another school in another community because the context can vary dramatically from area to area in terms of pupil enrolment and the student profile of any given school. That would lead, as it has in other countries, to crude comparisons and to the development of league tables which can have a negative impact on schools, the pupils attending those schools and the communities the schools serve.
The fundamental objective of school evaluation is to help schools improve and to enable them undertake root and branch examinations of their own planning and development. Schools can compare with national criteria that have been developed, and many are already engaged in self-evaluation. There would be comparisons, for example, between self-evaluation processes and the external evaluation process under this pilot project. We also anticipate that as the pilot develops and with the agreement of the partners, a national picture will emerge in terms of models of best practice from which schools can learn lessons and advance.
I would like to pursue this point. It seems incredible that the Minister would decide to set up a pilot project and in advance of that decide the most crucial issue it is designed to test, namely, whether evaluation and comparison of schools will result in quality improvement? Every other organisation examining quality improvement compares itself to others facing similar difficulties. The Minister has closed his mind to the idea of comparing a school facing certain difficulties in Dublin to a similar school facing similar difficulties in Cork. That is extremely short-sighted. Will he ensure that the pilot project will test the issue of comparison of schools and not disregard from the outset the notion of comparing the evaluations in different schools facing similar problems? I ask the Minister to reconsider that aspect.
The Deputy and I have fundamentally different positions on this issue.
What is the point of a pilot project?
Unfortunately I am not in a position to accommodate the Deputy's request. I will not request the pilot project to bring into play the comparison of schools.
That is very disappointing.
I am not introducing this pilot project unilaterally; it is being introduced in collaboration with the partners. It can only be successfully tested if there is trust between the partners involved in the pilot project
Will the Minister give way for one question?
Certainly.
Is it not the case that the Minister has dramatically watered down the role of parents in the pilot projects compared to what was published by his predecessor? Is he not downgrading the role of parents who are crucial partners in this process and who are not getting a fair crack of the whip in these pilots projects?
Absolutely not. Parents will be involved in these pilots.
Very remotely.
They will be involved in terms of the boards of management. Parents are represented on the boards of management and they are part of——
That was not the original proposal.
I allowed the Deputy to intervene with a question and I am responding. In the context of boards of management parents will be involved in the pilot project. The post-primary parents association has articulated satisfaction with the arrangements although it might like to see something better. I acknowledge the primary parents would like to see greater involvement but bearing in mind the long history behind this, my Department has made tremendous progress in terms of bringing the partners on board.
The Minister sold the pass.
To whom?
There are two crucial issues about evaluation. The first is that parents, as one of the key responders to the service, are not being given a central role in this matter. The second issue is that we must compare how one school facing difficulties is doing by comparison with another, otherwise we will never tackle the issue of disadvantage in our schools. The Minister is closing his mind to that issue if he is unwilling to examine why a school in a certain area——
We cannot have a debate. The purpose of Question Time is to elicit information, not give it. I would point out to the Deputy that if we do not move on quickly to the next question, his colleague's question will fall.
I agree to differ with the Minister.
We agree to differ fundamentally. Comparison exists with national data and criteria established and developed by my inspectorate.
Will the Minister make that available to us?
Certainly. Schools are unique and socially complex institutions. They do not lend themselves to easy comparison with the industrial world or organisations in the business world. It is a simplistic notion that businesses can develop quality assurances in certain ways. I have attended many ISO 9000 presentations and even in those evaluation processes, the fundamental issue is that the individual entity is anxious to develop and improve in the way it wants to proceed. The fundamental issue for the teacher doing a higher diploma or teacher training at primary level is self-evaluation. One must continue to evaluate how one is doing against set criteria. That is the fundamental principle underlying our school evaluation pilot project and I am delighted that the partners, including the parents in terms of the boards of management, and the teachers have come on board.