Shared Responsibility in Accountability
0 likes1,439 views
The document discusses the shift from monocentric to polycentric approaches in education policy, emphasizing shared responsibility and accountability among stakeholders. It highlights various methodologies and examples from different regions, showcasing how evaluation criteria and processes can adapt to local contexts. The importance of stakeholder involvement and the challenges faced by traditional inspectorates in implementing collaborative evaluation are also addressed.
Shared Responsibility in Accountability
- 1. Shared responsibility in accountability M. Ehren m.ehren@ucl.ac.uk 16 October 2016 OECD, Brussels www.ioe.ac.uk/lcll
- 2. Background to shared responsibility Changing education systems: - Decentralization - Increased autonomy - Increased network governance: linking different stakeholder organizations around a public policy purpose and a set of joint goals
- 3. Examples
- 4. The purpose of shared responsibility: • Addressing failing ‘command and control’ types of regulation • Acknowledging that no singe actor can regulate effectively • Creating conditions for responsiveness
- 5. Shared responsibility and accountability • Inherent contradiction? • Regulation and accountability need to adapt to local context and create the conditions in which schools effectively steer themselves Shifting from monocentric to polycentric approaches
- 6. Alkin and Christie’s evaluation tree
- 7. Methodology • Collection and analysis of empirical data for the study and judgment of particular aspects of social life. • Theorists in this branch: Campbell, Scriven, Stake (positivist, objectivist), Weiss, Pawson, Tilley (theory- driven evaluations), etc. Changes: from monocentric to polycentric: • Who defines standards and criteria and methods for evaluation? • What is the object of evaluation?
- 8. Methodology Monocentric Polycentric Top down, standardized approach to evaluate single schools, aimed at predicting and explaining school quality Bottom-up, context-specific approach to evaluate (schools in) networks, aimed at validating, interpreting, understanding quality of context-specific approaches and solutions
- 9. Examples methodology • NI/West Belfast: area-based inspections informed by network targets and self-evaluation • England: formal consultations on inspection frameworks • The Netherlands: round tables with (representatives of) all stakeholders to discuss and develop inspection frameworks, and pilot test frameworks • Scotland: place-based scrutiny, scoping exercise to inform data collection around one central question: what is it like to live and learn in this community? Developing questions for inquiry with local community • England: soft intelligence of Regional Schools Commissioners and local head teacher boards
- 10. Valuing/judgement the making of value judgments about the quality of some object, situation or process Theorists in this branch: Levin, Lincoln and Guba, Eisner, Scriven Scriven describes different approaches: pass-fail judgement, comparison of similar entities, goal-free (using a qualitative approach to describe events, reactions and interactions)
- 11. Valuing/judgement Who decides evaluation criteria? What is the object of evaluation? Monocentric Polycentric Prescriptive assessment criteria to judge quality of individual schools, pass-fail judgment decided by Inspectorate Inspectorate facilitates evaluation, goal-free, flexible and specific to context and information needs of (network of) schools and stakeholders
- 12. Examples valuing/judgement • NI/West Belfast: reports highlight strengths and weaknesses of the network and percentage of ALCs targets met • Scotland: map the attainment of strategic objectives for the area against the different subgroups and sub- communities • Sharing responsibility in judgment is counterintuitive to the position of many Inspectorates
- 13. Use (user involvement and consequences) use of evaluation findings, recognizing the importance of involving stakeholders when determining the evaluation questions to gather useful information. Theorists on this branch: Patton, Stufflebeam, Chelimskey, Wholey and others In an inspection context: also interventions to motivate improvement/compliance (e.g. rewards, sanctions)
- 14. Use (user involvement and consequences) What is the role of stakeholders in inspections and use of inspection findings? Which phase of the inspection are they involved in? Who decides on consequences of inspection assessment? Monocentric Polycentric ‘Distanced evaluation approaches’ Stakeholders (and schools) are end users of inspection assessments and object of evaluation. Only primary ‘decision-makers’ are target of consequences (e.g. head teachers) ‘Collaborative/participatory evaluation’ Stakeholders and schools involved in all inspection phases Intelligent intervention strategies targeted at all schools/stakeholders in a network to improve performance of entire network
- 15. Examples of user involvement - Ireland: NI/West Belfast: reports indicate who needs to address weaknesses within the ALC - England: RSCs discuss consequences of monitoring (rebrokering of academies to other Trusts) with local head teacher board, CEO of the Trust and academy involved (but decision ultimately is made by the RSC)