Pirjo Kännö 2004
Evaluation of General Education in Finland and in Helsinki
Girona 1.12.2005
Pirjo Kännö
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 2005-
2006 in Etu-Töölö Upper Secondary School
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Brief factsFinland• 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- vocationalhigher educationadult education
• Main providers of education:municipalities
• Nokia, PISA
Helsinki• Capital of Finland (1812)• Population 550 000
(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 70 000 students
Pirjo Kännö 2004Organization of Helsinki City Education Section
GENERAL EDUCATION DIVISION
Head of Division
ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT
CENTREResearch 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
11
.10
.20
05
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
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Evaluation of general education in Helsinki
• Framework and principles gradually developed within 10 – 15 years
• Evaluation strategy of general education 2000 -2004
• The evaluation guidelines of general education 2005-2007
• Development work going on constantly
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
Pirjo Kännö 2004
I STRATEGICEVALUATION
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
Pirjo Kännö 2004
VISIONLearning, able/capable, civilized/educated and
well-being Helsinki.High quality and internationally
respectededucation services
Economy/finance/resources
Staff, learningand well-being
Effectiveness/service capacity/
customers
High quality education services and learning
Social inclusion and participationSustainable development
Economic balance
2004General Education
Processes
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Leadership Key Performance Results
ProcessesPeople
Policy & Strategy
Partnerships & Resources
People results
Customer results
Society results
Enablers Results
Innovation and learning
The EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) Excellence Model
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Mission, vision, values
Evaluationof the present
state-approach
-deploymentAssessment and
review* strengths
*weaknesses(points for action)
Focusing on themost importantpoints for action
Action plan for thedevelopment
measures to be taken
Evaluation of theprogress
(Self-)evaluation ofthe success of the
development measures
Pirjo Kännö 2004
I Strategic Evaluation
DEPARTMENT LEVEL STRATEGY DOCUMENTS
STRATEGY PROCESS SCHOOL 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 analysis Common 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 Report Follow-up/Evaluation Annual Report
Staff
Finance
Customer
Processes
Mission Vision
Pirjo Kännö 2004
II Continuous Evaluation and Development
EDUCATION DATA DATA IN ADMINISTRATION SCHOOL 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
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-evaluationCity Administration:• supports quality development in all sectors:
- the Mayor’s Quality Award- training
Pirjo Kännö 2004
SCHOOL AUDITS 1- increasing networking and learning between schools
- increasing information flow between education department and schools
• HCED• HCED
SCHOOLSCHOOL
SCHOOLSCHOOL
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
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Schools• are expected to partricipate in audits regularly (target:
each school has been audited at least once by 2007)Administrationsupports 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 schoolsmakes use of the results
School audits 3
Pirjo Kännö 2004
year Number of audited schools
Number of auditors
Targets of the school audits
1997 4 External auditors
Evaluation areas of the Finnish Quality Award Criteria (MB -model) - a pilot
1999 22 40 Strategic priorities of the general education division
2000 14 36 Action planning process in school, involving students and stakeholders, staff leadership and development, follow up of student achievement results
2001 22 72 Action planning process and staff and organisation leadership/management
2002 23 60 EFQM criteria: staff ; partnerships and processes 2003 18 45 EFQM criteria: processes/curriculum design
process as an example 2004 20 41 EFQM criteria: results/ school welfare survey
results as an example and pastoral care in schools
Targets of school audits in 1997-2004
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Incentive Group Compensation
• Strategy based tool for management • The Balanced Scorecard model in use• Managed and coordinated by the city administrationSchools:• 10-14 schools involved (2004-2005)• 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 auditorsAdministration• All units of the education department are involved
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
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
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 developmentThe 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
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 method2. Why self-evaluation and quality management in education?3. The fundamental concepts of excellence and the good quality in a school (3.1-3.8)4. The structure of the EFQM-model5. The criteria and the sub-criteria (5.1-5.9)6. Alternative ways to do self-evaluation6.1. ”Quick-evaluation” – the questionnaire approach6.2. Evaluation based on the description document of the present state of school in all criteria6.3. The combination of 6.1. and 6.27. Writing out descriptions7.1. General discriptions7.2. Discription of the enablers and the results criteria8. How to do evaluation: RADAR –logic in practice
more info: www.koulutuksenarviointineuvosto.fi; [email protected], [email protected]
Pirjo Kännö 2004
CUSTOMERS
Provider of education SchoolStaff
Planning processes •Allocating resourcesSchool 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
CUSTOMER
WHO
HAS
RECEIVED
THE
SERVICE
Execution processes•Teaching and guidingStudent intakePastoral care/support Student assessmentMorning and afternoon care of pupilsInteraction relationsInvolving 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 individualsFunctioning processes
•Cooperation, communication, interaction
Examples of key and support processes to customers in education
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
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Etu-Töölö Upper Secondary School
• Medium sized non-gradedupper secondary school in the centre of Helsinki
• Ab. 430 students aged 16-19• 33 teachers• Mission: To offer our students a
wide general education with goodcommunication skills as well as skills in studying and acquiring knowledgeand 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: www.tyly.edu.hel.fi
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 2005-2006: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 planThree year planDevelopment targets in 2005-2006 (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
Pirjo Kännö 2004
EFQM self-evaluation plan 1/2
Aims1. to do EFQM self-evaluation using the questionnaire/”quick
evaluation” approach2. to prioritize improvement areas on the basis of the self-evaluation
results and to make concrete development plansTasks and schedules1. 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 2006
2. to have an evaluation session of 3 hours with the whole staffof 25-30 teachers in Apr 2006 a. orientation to evaluation and deviding into 4-5 groups led by the members of the SMTb. 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)
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 2006-2007 and 2007-2008
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
Pirjo Kännö 2004
Thank you for your attention!
Pirjo Kännö
Principal
Etu-Töölö Upper Secondary School
Arkadiankatu 26
00100 Helsinki
Finland
www.tyly.edu.hel.fi