relazione sull’articolazione delle attivita’...

EQUAL Experiencing Quality

Socrates Programme – Comenius 1 – School Development Project

THE OBSERVATORY OF QUALITY

A Handbook on how to set up an observatory of quality in school

ANNEX 1: THE EQUAL PROJECT

Escola Profissional de Desenvolvimento Rural de Serpa

SERPA, PORTUGAL

Marielundsgymnasiet

NORRKOPING, SWEDEN

Istituto Tecnico per Geometri e Liceo Tecnico

“Alessio Tramello” - PIACENZA, ITALY

Roc Friese Poort LEEUWARDEN, THE NETHERLANDS

EQUALExperiencing Quality


1/11

Table of Contents

1 THE PARTNERSHIP 22 THE PROJECT 43 OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES 5

3.1 Project’s aims 53.2 Impact expected 53.3 Activities 5

3.3.1 First year 5

3.3.2 Second Year 6

3.3.3 Third Year 6

4 ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT 75 THE FINAL PRODUCT 11



2/11

1 THE PARTNERSHIP

CO – ORDINATORESCOLA PROFISSIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO DE SERPA

(VOCATIONAL SCHOOL FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF SERPA)Address: Herdade da Bemposta, Apartado 26 7830 Serpa - PortugalPhone: + 351 284 540 440Fax: + 351 284 540 449E-mail: [email protected]: www.epdrs.ptPrincipal: Luís de Matos BarradasContact person: João Pereira Santos / [email protected]

PARTNERSMARIELUNDSGYMNASIET

Address: Stockholmsvagen 35 602 17 Norrkoping - SwedenPhone: + 46 11 15 33 94Fax: + 46 11 18 60 22E-mail: [email protected]: http://edu.norrkoping.se/marielund/Principal: Lars BlomgrenContact person: Nelson Santa Eufémia

ISTITUTO TECNICO COMMERCIALE E PER GEOMETRI “ALESSIO TRAMELLO”(COMMERCIAL AND TOPOGRAPHY TECHNICAL SCHOOL “ALESSIO TRAMELLO”)

Address: Via Mattei, 33 29 100 Piacenza - ItalyPhone: + 39 0523 454050Fax: + 39 0523 454030E-mail: [email protected]: www.tramello.itPrincipal: Franco BalestraContact person: Marco Affaticati / [email protected]

ROC FRIESE POORT(REGIONAL EDUCATION CENTER FRIESE POORT)

Address: Wilaarderburen 1 8924 JK Leeuwarden - NetherlandsPhone: + 31 58 265 5200Fax: + 31 58 265 5220E-mail: [email protected]: www.friesepoort.nlPrincipal: Dean PostmaContact person: Jan Arends / [email protected]



3/11

PARTNERSRIGAS MEZAPARKA VIDUSSKOLA

Address: Inculkalna iela 2 LV – 1014 Riga - LatviaPhone: + 371 7 51 86 16Fax: + 371 7 51 81 65E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.rsdc.lv/rmvsk/Principal: Arija PriplonskaContact person: Vera Muhina

This school was part of the partnership only during the school year 2002– 2003 (1st year of the Project)



4/11

2 THE PROJECTSchools are, probably, the institutions in which it is more difficult to measure quality and alsoto define it. Usually, the school’s quality is measured in a simple and incomplete way,considering the success/failure levels of the students.

But the school’s quality is larger than that: it has to do with the way that, everyday, hundredsof people work in a certain space, during several years of their lives. This project aims to,within the universe that comprehends partnership, find the quality criteria. What is themeaning of quality for the school’s users; what do they expect from it and what is legitimateto expect from it and, ultimately, how can one reach quality in school.

Being school the working place of so many people, it is proper to consider that its qualitydepends on the quality of each individual, including its students, in the way that each personplays his/her role. It also depends on the way people fit in and feel within it.

Based on a reflexion focussed on several schools and shared by all partners involved, weintend to mobilize the school’s community in the search for quality. The definition of thequality’s criteria will be the first step and, by doing that, a Quality Observatory will be created.

This Observatory, through self-evaluation systems, may help each individual to find its rightbelonging within the school’s environment.If people learn how to be professional then school will be a better place for all of us.



5/11

3 OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES

3.1 Project’s aims

• To increase the schools’ quality as educational institutions;• To improve the levels of teachers, students and other workers;• To develop the schools’ organization and culture;• To stimulate the cooperation and the European communication in the educational domain;• To know the different European educational realities in what regards the schools’

organization and management;• To develop the participants’ linguistic competences;• To stimulate the use of information and communication technologies;• To promote the educational and school success.

3.2 Impact expected

We expect that, through this project, schools may raise their efficiency as educationalinstitutions, that teachers, students and other staff improve their performance by playing anactive role in the development of the educational project of the school they work for.

3.3 Activit ies

3.3.1 First year

The project’s first year was dedicated to the discussion of quality in education. Each schooltried to identify the meaning of this expression for students, teachers, staff and parents.

There was a study done concerning the quality indicators. Beginning with a list of 50 qualityindicators for schools, based on the opinion of experts in educational investigation, someother indicators were added, which had been considered relevant for one or more schools.After this final list, each partner school chose, once more after having heard the opinion ofstudents, teachers, staff and parents, the quality indicators which were most significant totheir reality and their educational project.

A logotype and an Internet site were created and developed for the project, lodged on thesites of each of the schools involved in the project, and a leaflet for the project’sdissemination was designed.

• November 2002: Project Meeting in Norrkoping, Sweden;• May 2003: Project Meeting, Piacenza, Italy.



6/11

3.3.2 Second Year

The project’s second year was dedicated to developing the quality indicators. After eachschool had identified its most important quality indicators, the results were compared andconfronted, thus creating one only list, summing up the relative importance of each of theindicators in the whole of the four schools participating in the project.

After the 16 most significant indicators had been chosen, descriptive files were developed foreach of them, based on descriptors, which had been previously identified by the four schools.

The project’s Internet site was updated, and a new dissemination leaflet was designed,referring to the activities which had been developed during the year.

• November 2003: Project Meeting in Serpa, Portugal;• May 2004: Project Meeting in Leeuwarden, Netherlands, with participation of

students.

3.3.3 Third Year

The project’s third year was dedicated to conceiving the tools of information gathering foreach of the indicators. The several tools, which can be found in this manual, were designedand tested.

The project’s Internet site was updated for its final version, and this manual was produced.

• December 2004: Project Meeting in Piacenza, Italy, with participation of students.• May 2005: Project Meeting in Serpa, Portugal, with participation of students.



7/11

4 ORGANIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT

As we have seen before, this project started by, within the universe of this partnership,finding the quality criterion. What is the quality of the school for its different users; what doeseach one expect and what is legitimate to expect from the school; how can the quality inSchool be obtained.

Thus, during the project’s first year, the activities were planned as follows:

• The quality criterion: What is the quality in schools? How can the quality in schools beobtained? What role does each person play in obtaining the quality in schools?

• Opinion survey and gathering (questionnaires, inquiries, discussion groups);• Investigation based on texts and literature;• Creation of a website, through which the work can be consulted and the partners can

communicate.

In the beginning of the school year, in each school there was a team nominated for thedevelopment of the project. This team began by researching and gathering information on theproject’s subject, in order to prepare for its development and for the first project meeting.

A framing document was produced (see annex 2), on the subject of quality in schools, whichwas distributed and analysed by all partners during the first meeting in Norrkoping, inDecember 2002, and which was the basis for the work to be done afterwords, with thefollowing approach:

1. There was a list of quality indicators for the school created, based on the suggestions ofexperts, and with the contributions of the project’s partners;

2. Based on this list, a questionnaire was created (see annex 2), which was then given tothe schools’ different users (teachers, students, non teaching staff and parents);

3. In this questionnaire, the school’s users were asked to evaluate the quality parametrespresent in the document, on a scale from 1 to 5, according to the importance each ofthem attributed to them;

4. The questionnaire also contained an open question, where each person was invited topresent his/her notion of quality;

5. Each school could decide on whether to apply the questionnaire to the whole of its public,or only to a sample;

6. Each school organized a dossier with the presentation of this work (descriptive text andstatistical analysis), which was presented during the second project meeting.



8/11

The results of the questionnaires were analysed in each school and presented during thesecond project meeting, in May 2003 in Piacenza, still during the first year. There was acomparison made between the results of the different schools, according to thecharacteristics of each of them and of each of the national educational systems, which leadteachers, students, staff and parents into, naturally, valuing one or the other issue concerningthe quality of schools.

During the project’s first year the Italian partner designed the project’s logotype, and theproject’s co-ordinator designed its Internet site.

The project’s second year was naturally the continuation of the work done during theprevious year, with the focus essentially on the quality indicators.

Thus, after each school had identified its quality indicators, the work was developed in thefollowing steps:

1. The indicators, which were common to the different partner schools, were identified:during the first Project meeting, in November 2003, in Serpa, each of the schoolspresented its most significant quality indicators;

2. The indicators, on which the partners would work, were negotiated and defined, sincethey should not only reflect the whole of the involved schools, but also the most importantof each one of them. 16 indicators were selected (as presented in the first part of thismanual);

3. The chosen indicators were divided over the partner schools. Since the partnershipconsists of 4 schools, each school worked on 4 indicators;

4. During the time between the two project meetings each school found the descriptors ofeach of the indicators. This step was fundamental in order to be certain that eachinstitution was talking of the same thing concerning each of the indicators since, as wassaid before, the reference universes differ considerably between the several schools andtheir educational systems. Therefore, this was a very sensitive issue, which required ahard negotiation process and extensive contacts.

5. During the second meeting of the project’s second year, in May 2004 in Leeauwarden, thedescriptors were presented (see annex 2) and agreed upon amongst all partners.

6. During the same meeting the partners identified and agreed on the tools for informationgathering to be created, to obtain the information necessary for each indicator, accordingto the identified descriptors.



9/11

The project’s third year was essentially dedicated to the tools for information gathering foreach of the indicators. After the second meeting of the project’s second year each schoolbegan to prepare, within its work group, the tools for information gathering necessary foreach indicator. Let us remember that the necessary information was determined by thealready mentioned previous survey of descriptors.

The first meeting of the project’s third year was held in Piacenza, in December 2004. There,each school presented the developed tools, and the strategy for the year was defined:

1. The tools for information gathering were presented and discussed. Small, punctualcorrections were made;

2. The partners established the way of doing the testing. They established that each schoolwould test two indicators: one common to all, which is the indicator “Level of satisfaction”and another indicator, at each school’s choice;

3. Each school should elaborate a report on the testing of its indicators, to be presentedduring the project’s last meeting.

There were also decisions taken regarding the project’s final product, this manual, and whichare explained in the next point.

During the second meeting of the project’s third year (final meeting) in Serpa, in May 2005,the test results were presented.

After this stage, the project came to an end, with the publication of this manual, whichcontains all the produced material.

All the project activities were planned and evaluated by all partners together, during theproject meetings. As a matter of fact, the cooperation and the sharing of knowledge were afundamental principle during the development of the project, as well as was the flexibility tofind the best solutions for each situation, since the cultural differences and the differences inthe school organization of the partner countries are significant.

In a project of this kind, related to the educational sciences and to pedagogic management,these differences and similarities can be relevant and difficult to resolve, because sometimesthe institutionalized concepts and practices are, in fact, very different.



10/11

Thus, dialogue and an approach centered on the project’s interest were always priviledged.This interest always reflected the common interest and the maximum common denominatoramong the four partners. In other words, the experience and the individual knowledge ofeach of the institutions were used towards a common purpose, the construction of a qualityobservatory, which also reflects a common interest of the project, above the interest of eachof the involved parts.

To communicate, the partners had periodic contacts with each other, in order to keepinformed about the project’s development. The priviledged contact language was English.The tasks were identical for all, having in mind the vocation and the possibilities of eachparticipating school.

The project’s co-ordinator was in charge of the construction and the maintenance of theproject’s Internet site, as well as the conception of the leaflets (see annex 2).

The co-ordinator was also responsible for the organization of the contacts on a regular basis,and the monitoring of the project’s development.

The Italian partner was responsible for the creation of the project’s logotype and for theorganization of this manual, as the project’s final product.



11/11

5 THE FINAL PRODUCT

There are three final products of this project: the Internet site, the annual leaflets, and themanual.

The project’s site is lodged on each of the school’s Internet site, with direct access throughthe project’s logotype. It was managed by the co-ordinator, who sent each of the updates tothe partners.

The site is bilingual, in English and in each country’s national language. It consists of thefollowing sections: presentation of the project; description of the project; picture gallery;events; final products; contacts.

Through the project’s site it is possible to access the sites of each of the schools in thepartnership.

The leaflets (see annex 2) are also bilingual (English and the national language) and werepublished at the end of each of the project’s years. Each partner was responsible for theirduplication and distribution. The structure and contents are the same for all.Each of them presents the project and the work done during the year in question, drawingattention to the most relevant facts.

This manual is the project’s main final product, and does not only reflect the several stages ofthe project’s development, but mainly the study done of the project’s subject, as well as alldeveloped materials.

It was designed by the partnership and all partners took active part in its contents, whichwere organized by the Italian partner.Although the manual is published on CD-ROM, it can also be printed.

relazione sull’articolazione delle attivita’...

Documents