Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Pirjo Kännö 2004 Evaluation of General Education in Finland and in Helsinki Girona 1.12.2005 Pirjo Kännö.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Pirjo Kännö 2004 Evaluation of General Education in Finland and in Helsinki Girona 1.12.2005 Pirjo Kännö."— Presentation transcript:

1 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Evaluation of General Education in Finland and in Helsinki Girona Pirjo Kännö

2 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Contents of the presentations 1. part (presentation) Brief facts about Finland and Helsinki and about education in Finland Framework for evaluation of general education in Finland Helsinki: Local level example of the evaluation of general education (system view) – BSC;EFQM – school self-evaluation, school audits Education application of the EFQM (example of processes) Challenges of evaluation of education 2. part (workshop) Brief facts about Etu-Töölö Upper Secondary School Self-evaluation plan (EFQM) for school year in Etu-Töölö Upper Secondary School

3 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Brief facts Finland parliamentary republic (1917) member of the EU (1995) population ab. 5,3 million 2 official languages: Finnish and Swedish Education (age): pre-school, voluntary (6) comprehensive school (7-15) post-comprehensive (16-19) -general upper secondary - vocational higher education adult education Main providers of education: municipalities Nokia, PISA Helsinki Capital of Finland (1812) Population (capital region 1,2 million) Finnish speaking 88%, Swedish speaking 6,5% 190 schools in Helsinki comprehensives, upper secondaries for young and adults and 15 vocational institutions (165 maintained by the city) Helsinki City Education Department employs 5900 people (4200 teachers) Services for students

4 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Organization of Helsinki City Education Section GENERAL EDUCATION DIVISION Head of Division ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE Research and Development Manager SWEDISH EDUCATION DIVISION Head of Division YOUTH AND ADULT EDUCATION DIVISION Head of Division · Finnish Comprehensive Schools (112) · Swedish Comprehensive Schools (23) · Upper Secondary Schools (4) · Upper Secondary Schools for Adults (1) · Vocational Institutions (3) · Finnish Upper Secondary Schools (14) · Upper Secondary Schools for Adults (3) · Young People’s Workshops (4) · Apprenticeship Training Bureau · Strategic Services · Financial Services · Personnel and Legal Services · Acquisition and Real Estate Services · IT Services · Media Centre HEAD OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATION COMMITTEE Finnish Division Swedish Division

5 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Framework for evaluation of general education in Finland since 1999 a statutory obligation: each provider of education (including schools) must - evaluate the education it offers and its effectiveness - participate in external evaluation (criteria and objects determined by the Ministry of Education) responsibility of the development of local (and school level) evaluation is on the provider of education (municipalities) National Council for Educational Evaluation (2003) supports local evaluation no inspection system in Finland no regular testing system to all students in comprehensive level (quota based testing done by National Board of Education in core subjects) matriculation examination: the first national test to all upper secondary students

6 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Evaluation of general education in Helsinki Framework and principles gradually developed within 10 – 15 years Evaluation strategy of general education The evaluation guidelines of general education Development work going on constantly

7 Pirjo Kännö 2004 The Purpose of Evaluation is to provide and analyse information in order to support decision making to improve preconditions of learning to promote learning to support development

8 Pirjo Kännö 2004 I STRATEGIC EVALUATION Mission, Values, Vision, Goals and Strategic Priorities Objectives and Measures Follow up/Evaluation Environment analysis II CONTINUOUS EVALUATION TOOLS BSC EFQM Plan Do Check Act. The Framework of Evaluation

9 Pirjo Kännö 2004 VISION Learning, able/capable, civilized/educated and well-being Helsinki. High quality and internationally respected education services Economy/finance/ resources Staff, learning and well-being Effectiveness/ service capacity/ customers High quality education services and learning Social inclusion and participation Sustainable development Economic balance 2004 General Education Processes

10 Pirjo Kännö 2004 LeadershipKey Performance Results ProcessesPeople Policy & Strategy Partnerships & Resources People results Customer results Society results EnablersResults Innovation and learning The EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) Excellence Model

11 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Mission, vision, values Evaluation of the present state -approach -deployment Assessment and review * strengths *weaknesses (points for action) Focusing on the most important points for action Action plan for the development measures to be taken Evaluation of the progress ( Self-)evaluation of the success of the development measures

12 Pirjo Kännö 2004 I Strategic Evaluation DEPARTMENT LEVEL STRATEGY DOCUMENTS STRATEGY PROCESSSCHOOL LEVEL STRATEGY DOCUMENTS School Legislation/Government Development Programme of Education/National Guidelines for Curriculum/ Evaluation Programme of The Education Evaluation Council Common basic information provided by the city Environment analysisCommon basic information provided by the city City Guidelines for Curriculum Action and Financial Plan City Guidelines for Curriculum Separate strategies Result Budget Mission, values, vision Goals and strategic priorities (BSC) Functional and financial objectives, measures and targets (BSC) Curriculum Action Plan Separate strategies Budget Annual ReportFollow-up/EvaluationAnnual Report Staff Finance Customer Processes Mission Vision

13 Pirjo Kännö 2004 II Continuous Evaluation and Development EDUCATION DATADATA IN ADMINISTRATIONSCHOOL LEVEL DATA Evaluation Practices/reports - Self-evaluation Reports (EFQM) - School Audit Reports - Result Discussions Agreements --Group Compensation Reports - Curriculum Evaluation Report- -Management Information System Evaluation Practices - Self-evaluation of Action (EFQM) -Result Discussions - Incentive Group Compensation - Other Compensation - Management Information System Evaluation Practices - Self-evaluation of Action (EFQM) - School Audits -Result Discussions -Incentive Group Compensation - Other Compensation - Evaluation of the Curriculum - Management Information Support Customer Results - Service Capacity Survey (parents/students) Customer Results - Service Capacity Survey - Customer Jury - Documenting Spontaneous Feedback Customer Results - Service Capacity Survey (parents/students) People Results - Work Welfare Survey -Personnel report -Professional knowledge/skills survey People Results - Work Welfare Survey Professional knowledge/skills survey People Results - Work Welfare Survey -Professional knowledge/skills survey Key Performance Results - Finance Follow-up Reports Evaluation of Student Achievement - Evaluation of Learning-to-Learn skills -- School Welfare Survey -Environment report Key Performance Results - Finance Follow-up Reports - Realization of Action Plans Key Performance Results - Finance Follow-Up Reports - Evaluation of Student Achievement - Evaluation of Learning-to-Learn Skills -School Welfare Survey -Environment survey

14 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Self-evaluation of Schools Schools: are expected to use the EFQM model as a tool send a summary of self-evaluation results to the education department once in four years (not in action yet) Education Department: supports schools by providing quality training prepares a technical device to facilitate self-evaluation City Administration: supports quality development in all sectors: - the Mayor’s Quality Award - training

15 Pirjo Kännö 2004 SCHOOL AUDITS 1 - increasing networking and learning between schools - increasing information flow between education department and schools HCED SCHOOL

16 Pirjo Kännö 2004 School audits 2 continuous development, not inspection a forum for professional network learning through mutual reflection sharing of good practices and experiences to give feedback to other schools and to education department carried out by a trained pair or a group of peer auditors (head teacher&teacher) prepared audit plan and ”check lists” on agreed targets auditors write a report a summary of the reports is written

17 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Schools are expected to partricipate in audits regularly (target: each school has been audited at least once by 2007) Administration supports schools by planning and preparing the focus of school audits every year choosing the schools and auditors if needed training the auditors having a summary report made of the individual audit reports informing about the results steers the work of schools makes use of the results School audits 3

18 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Targets of school audits in

19 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Incentive Group Compensation Strategy based tool for management The Balanced Scorecard model in use Managed and coordinated by the city administration Schools: schools involved ( ) staff commit themselves to agreed development initiatives (based on the strategic priorities/BSC) staff are entitled to extra payment (max 5% of the salary costs) realization of development initiatives evaluated against agreed criteria evaluation carried out by peer auditors Administration All units of the education department are involved

20 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Plan for the evaluation of action and development in schools 1 The plan is required as part of the school based curriculum: the same city level principles used in all schools separate school level part

21 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Plan for the evaluation of action and development in schools 2 City level principles: School level evaluation is part of the local evaluation and part of the every day work in school The purpose of evaluation is to support learning, support the work of the school staff and to provide and analyse information in order to support decision making and development Starting points for the annual planning of action and finance in schools are the curriculum, the strategic priorities and functional and financial targets of general education and the annual report of the previous school year. The school also makes use of the available external evaluation results in its planning. In their self evaluation schools are expected to pay regard to the common evaluation practices of the city and their results Schools are expected to take part in national and local research/surveys, make use of the provided information in developing their work Schools are allowed to use their own evaluation methods and choose their own targets of evaluation in addition to the common evaluation practices of the city The head teacher and teachers of the school are responsible for the evaluation at school level

22 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Plan for the evaluation of action and development in schools 3 Instruction for the school level part The school decribes its evaluation processes: the annual planning and evaluation of action and finance and continuous evaluation and development using the following grouping: 1.Strategic evaluation (the annual action plan (school plan)/financial plan/annual report –process) - description of the preparing process: who is involved and how - how the results and conclusions of evaluation are made use of in the annual planning process and development 2.Continuous evaluation and development The school describes in the curriculum how the common evaluation practices and its own practices are taken into consideration in self-evaluation and how and when the common evaluation practices are carried out

23 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Education application of the EFQM model Will shortly (2005) be published by the Council of Educational Evaluation in Finland as a recommended tool for self-evaluation Contents: 1. EFQM-model as an evaluation method 2. Why self-evaluation and quality management in education? 3. The fundamental concepts of excellence and the good quality in a school ( ) 4. The structure of the EFQM-model 5. The criteria and the sub-criteria ( ) 6. Alternative ways to do self-evaluation 6.1. ”Quick-evaluation” – the questionnaire approach 6.2. Evaluation based on the description document of the present state of school in all criteria 6.3. The combination of 6.1. and Writing out descriptions 7.1. General discriptions 7.2. Discription of the enablers and the results criteria 8. How to do evaluation: RADAR –logic in practice more info:

24 Pirjo Kännö 2004 CUSTOMERS CUSTOMERS Provider of educationSchool Staff Planning processes Allocating resources  School network and provision  Common principles (e.g. curriculum guidelines, annual- /work planning)  Preparation for decision making Development and support processes Evaluation Development initiatives Learning- and work environment Administration and finance processes Teaching material and information services Information technology services Supplier services School transport services Restaurant services Cleaning services Real estate services CUSTOMERWHOHASRECEIVEDTHESERVICECUSTOMERWHOHASRECEIVEDTHESERVICE Execution processes Teaching and guiding  Student intake  Pastoral care/support  Student assessment  Morning and afternoon care of pupils  Interaction relations  Involving students Planning processes Curriculum planning Annual-/work-/development planning Planning for teaching- and guiding arrangements Planning for pastoral care/other support services Functioning of the work community, groups and individuals Functioning processes Cooperation, communication, interaction Examples of key and support processes to customers in education

25 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Challenges of Evaluation Building an Evaluation Culture as Normal Part of the Everyday Work Making Systematic Use of the Gathered Information Finding Ways to Facilitate Evaluation Building of Working Management Information Systems Better resources needed

26 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Etu-Töölö Upper Secondary School Medium sized non-graded upper secondary school in the centre of Helsinki Ab. 430 students aged teachers Mission: To offer our students a wide general education with good communication skills as well as skills in studying and acquiring knowledge and a solid foundation for further studies. We emphasize the active role of the student as a learner and as a builder of his/her own conciousness in the changing world. more info:

27 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Action and development plan of schools Contents: 1.Mission of school/approval of the plan (by School Board) 2.Conclusions from previous year’s action plan 3.Functioning of the school in : general arrangements, courses offered, advisory services, pastoral care, special needs services, teaching of students with different language and cultural backgrounds, religious occasions, activities outside of school, collaboration with other institutions, international contacts, school clubs, school/parent relations, involving students (student council) 4.Development plan Three year plan Development targets in (one of them:self-evaluation of school culture and action by using the EFQM model as a tool) In-service training plan of teachers 5.Calculation of the teaching resources for the school year

28 Pirjo Kännö 2004 EFQM self-evaluation plan 1/2 Aims 1.to do EFQM self-evaluation using the questionnaire/”quick evaluation” approach 2.to prioritize improvement areas on the basis of the self-evaluation results and to make concrete development plans Tasks and schedules 1.with the help of the principal (in this case) to make the ”Senior Management Team” familiar with the EFQM model (education application) and the questionnaire approach in SMT meetings Oct 2005 – Mar to have an evaluation session of 3 hours with the whole staff of teachers in Apr 2006 a. orientation to evaluation and deviding into 4-5 groups led by the members of the SMT b. each group self-evaluates 1-2 areas (criteria) documenting major strengths and improvement needs and concrete development suggestions (maybe simple sub-criteria scoring on 1-5 scale)

29 Pirjo Kännö 2004 EFQM self-evaluation plan 2/2 Tasks and schedules continues 3.SMT meeting in April: going through the results of the evaluation, prioritizing the development targets and scheduling them 4.Staff meeting in May: approving the SMT’s proposal for the development targets for the following two school years and Future plans After 2008 (or 2007) new self-evaluation, this time using the evaluation based on the description document of the present state of school in all criteria (enablers and results), maybe also more rigorous scoring

30 Pirjo Kännö 2004 Thank you for your attention! Pirjo Kännö Principal Etu-Töölö Upper Secondary School Arkadiankatu Helsinki Finland


Download ppt "Pirjo Kännö 2004 Evaluation of General Education in Finland and in Helsinki Girona 1.12.2005 Pirjo Kännö."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google