Emergent data-driven approaches to school improvement: The journey of three schools through self-evaluation

Abstract

This article aims to illustrate a school self-evaluation project implemented in three Cyprus primary schools. The project adopted three theoretical assumptions, namely, an orientation towards school improvement, a participatory school-level approach allowing support from a critical friend and a focus on effective teaching. In line with a seven-stage model, the project employed action-research strategies, involving data collection to inform the development of school plans. To highlight paths towards school improvement in the particular context, the article discusses researchers’ and participants’ perspectives. Repercussions are then drawn for the implementation of similar practices, drawing on the roles of teachers, school leaders and critical friends, as well as appropriate resources, in support of self-evaluative activity.

Keywords

Cyprus data driven participatory project school improvement school self-evaluation

Introduction

A governmental ‘educational reform plan’ (Debate on Educational Reform, 2005) and several local research studies (e.g. Kyriakides, 2001) in Cyprus appear to place school self-evaluation (SSE) at the heart of reformed teacher and school evaluation schemes. In this regard, a 2-year project focused on SSE was implemented in three Cypriot primary schools with the support of the Center for Educational Research and Evaluation (CERE), in collaboration with a partnering region in Latvia. The project primarily aimed to enhance awareness of the benefits accrued and to inspire a culture of SSE, hence contributing to the national debate about school improvement (SI).

This attempt was regarded as innovatory, while initiating processes not implicit or usual at the policy level. Specifically, Cyprus lacks systemic structures in support of SSE practices. Although several educational systems exercise quality control in schools (Moelands & Ouborg, 1998), measures towards school accountability in this setting are practically non-existent. Additionally, unlike other contexts that provide schools with information for raising standards, performance/statistical data for Cyprus schools are currently absent. Finally, there is a lack of SSE tools at the national level, like in, for example, the United Kingdom or the Netherlands (Hofman, Dukstra, & Hofman, 2005). In view of these conditions, self-evaluative activity in Cypriot schools appears as a challenging endeavour. In this regard, while implementing the particular SSE project, a model of collaboration was applied, allowing for school autonomy in determining priorities and action, but also providing ‘external’ support in data management and interpretation.

To illuminate SSE processes in an interesting context that lacks systemic support, the present article article reflects on the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of this project, as well as its practical implementation. Specifically, the stages of the initiative in terms of three major phases and seven stages are discussed. A between-case approach, drawing on commonalities that emerge from school accounts, highlights issues about SSE that appear of relevance, not only to the particular setting, but also to others that lack structures in support of SSE.

The literature: theoretical aspects of the project

To begin with, the project was oriented towards SI, rather than school effectiveness (SE). The respective literature supports a longstanding debate on the dual purposes of school development and accountability (Leung, 2005; Plowright & Godfrey, 2008), which translate into SSE towards SI or SE, respectively (Peng, Thomas, Yang, & Li, 2006). In fact, Wrigley (2013) engages in a systematic critique of the two paradigms, pointing to the need for ‘more enlightened orientations for educational change’ (p. 42). Despite criticisms exercised on these two schools of thought, the current project clearly adopted an approach towards SSE for SI on several grounds. First, this perspective seemed to be in line with the new evaluation schemes, discussed at the national level at the time. Second, an emphasis on SI would safeguard against instrumentalist, rationalistic and managerial approaches to educational change (Blok, Sleegers, & Karsten, 2008; De Crauwe & Naidoo, 2004a; Mulford, 2005) that would appear inappropriate in view of the weak relationship between SI and student achievement in the literature (Harris & Chrispeels, 2009).

Additionally, in line with the respective literature, the SSE project adopted a participatory approach, along the suggestion by Swaffield and MacBeath (2005) that SSE is something that schools do to themselves, by themselves and for themselves. As Vanhoof and Van Petegem (2012) argue, SSE is often viewed as ‘a cyclical process whereby a school itself describes and assesses [. . .] aspects of its own functioning in a systematic manner’ (p. 50). Self-evaluating schools develop their own agenda and focus on areas of relevance to their own context (Davies & Rudd, 2001; Privitelli & Bezzina, 2006). Therefore, self-evaluation resembles ‘a paradigm shift from a passive and compliant role to an active role in which teachers are the prime movers’ (in MacBeath, 2008, p. 396). In this regard, the project assumed that SSE mechanisms, as well as improvement strategies, would be developed by schools themselves. The assumption that the school stakeholders are able to define their own improvement strategies is identified by Demetriou and Kyriakides (2012) as the first approach in developing SSE mechanisms, the other two being focused on schools as mini-political systems or SE research. Yet, in view of the contextual challenges outlined above, it was decided that, within the context of this project, SSE processes would be ‘monitored’ by the critical friend (this case, the CERE).

Finally, in consideration of the breadth of emphases within SSE, focus was placed on teaching. It is often argued that the scope of SSE can be wide and embrace several activities, ranging ‘from process evaluation of classroom practices (action-research), school-focused in-service education for teachers and continuous organisational change to more mechanistic modes of accountability such as cost-benefit analysis and performance-based education’ (Blok et al., 2008, p. 380). Hence, among aspects such as inputs, processes and outcomes, human and physical resources, leadership and management, teaching and learning or students’ standards (De Crauwe & Naidoo, 2004a), teaching was chosen as the area of emphasis.

The methodology

This article aims to ‘tell the story’ of this SSE project by discussing, first, the stages implemented and, second, the participants’ perspectives.

With regard to the first aim, in line with the orientation towards SI, the project resembled action-research methodologies (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Holly & Whitehead, 1986; McNiff, 1993; Stringer, 1996). According to the literature (e.g. Cohen & Manion, 1997; McNiff, 1993, 1997), data gathering mechanisms can allow the ensuing feedback to be translated into development and/or modifications of possible action. As Benjamin (2014) argues, ‘data can lead to knowledge, knowledge to right action, and action to improvement’ (p. 45). This resembles an evidence-based approach, similar to that discussed by Geijsel, Krüger, and Sleegers (2010) who propose the implementation of a cycle of data gathering, data feedback and data use, so that action strategies for SI by principals and school staff can be inspired by actual data. Besides, SSE involves the systematic collection and analysis of information ‘to form value judgements based on firm evidence’ (Neil & Johnson, 2005, p. 73). Specifically, the applied methodology in this project reflected Kapachtsi and Kakana’s (2012) ‘collaborative action research’, involving jointed efforts of researchers (the CERE) and educational practitioners (in schools). Hence, multiple sources of data were employed throughout implementation: questionnaires were distributed to the three schools to highlight perceived needs and inform respective action; in addition, field notes were kept by the researchers during staff meetings to record decisions and interactions throughout the various stages.

With regard to the second focus, the study explored the perceptions of participants, as these were recorded in final questionnaires and focus-group discussions at the end of the first year. The open-ended questionnaires explored strengths and weaknesses of the project as well as outcomes and future plans, while focus-group discussions elicited overall impressions. The three schools were considered as case studies, allowing real-context conditions about the intervention to be illustrated (Patton, 1990). To establish anonymity, schools were assigned the pseudonyms: Saffran (S), Masticha (M) and Anise (A). Saffran was a small school with 99 children (6–9 years old) and 10 teachers in an inner city residential area. The school emphasized child-centredness, participation and teamwork, critical thinking and creativity, and teacher professional development, and aimed to be ‘a school of joy and learning for all, where all enjoy opportunities to become better’ (school vision statement). Masticha was located in a densely populated urban area and had 197 pupils (6–9 years old), as well as teaching and non-teaching personnel, including two deputy heads. Masticha was proactive on several encounters and had, thus far, developed school plans in health and environmental education. Anise had 101 pupils (6–9 years old) and 13 teachers. The school aimed to help every pupil grow as an individual, while acquiring the necessary knowledge, skills and understandings through participation across and beyond the curriculum. According to the staff, children learned to respect human diversity and develop fulfilling relationships, essential for lifelong learning. Across these three schools, a cross-case analysis of participants’ accounts was undertaken to compile, organize and share what was learned, rather than to reduce the data to a few common themes.

It is important to note here that, in the absence of ‘hard’ evidence for changes in teaching or students’ performance, the ultimate parameter for assessing the project was the extent to which SSE processes resulted to action (Vanhoof & Van Petegem, 2012). Yet, since participants’ accounts could be regarded as self-explanatory, with stakeholders often expressing views to defend their own standpoint (De Crauwe & Naidoo, 2004b), findings should be interpreted with caution.

The findings

The researchers’ perspective: a spiral model of seven stages

As already discussed, a model combining features for effective SI and external support was applied in all three schools. This model included seven stages (Figure 1) in three phases: Phase A (data collection and analysis), Phase B (planning, implementation and monitoring) and Phase C (reflection).

Figure 1.

Model for the project.

Phase A: setting directions, collecting and analysing data (Stages –3)

During the first stage ‘direction and readiness’, the three schools discussed school development (theory, research, practice) and reached a common definition for SSE. Schools also decided to focus on effective teaching.

The second stage – collection of self-evaluation data – involved distribution of a school self-evaluation research tool (SSERT) developed by the CERE that addressed five areas: planning strategies and curriculum implementation (key area 1), classroom practices and methodologies (key area 2), monitoring and assessment practices (key area 3), classroom management (key area 4), and professional development (key area 5). These five areas as well as the items included were derived from the literature on SI and effective teaching (e.g. Creemers, 2002; Creemers & Kyriakides, 2006; Muijs & Reynolds, 2001; Scheerens & Bosker, 1997). The tool allowed teachers to indicate the extent to which statements reflected the present state in their school/classroom on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = minimum to 5 = maximum). To provide for overview of what the questionnaire addressed, the items for key areas 2, 3 and 5 are indicated in Tables 1 to 3, respectively. The SSERT was pilot tested and a resulting coefficient (alpha) of 0.946 indicated acceptable reliability.

Table 1.

Questionnaire items – classroom practices and methodologies (key area 2).

1.	Teaching clearly structured, goal-oriented lessons
2.	Using whole-class direct instruction
3.	Using group work
4.	Using co-operative learning approaches that establish learning interdependence among pupils
5.	Using a variety of teaching methods
6.	Adjusting teaching to pupils’ personal interests and the current news
7.	Using problem-solving activities
8.	Using stimulating discussions, by means of both closed and open-type questions by the teacher
9.	Using written and oral assignments
10.	Offering pupils opportunities for active, interactive learning
11.	Encouraging pupils to present their ideas and work to others
12.	Offering time for consolidation of new knowledge
13.	Offering individualized support
14.	Using differentiated material for low-performing pupils
15.	Using differentiated material for high-performing pupils
16.	Using a variety of visual aids to support teaching
17.	Implementing ICT in everyday teaching
18.	Summarizing main points at the end of each lesson
19.	Developing higher order thinking skills
20.	Developing meta-cognitive skills
21.	Provision of equal learning opportunities to all students

ICT: information and communication technology.

Table 2.

Questionnaire items – monitoring and assessment practices (key area 3).

1.	Systematic monitoring of pupils’ progress
2.	Using appropriate questions during the lesson, in order to monitor the process of constructing new understanding/meaning
3.	Using appropriate questions at the end of the lesson, in order to check whether goals are achieved
4.	Checking pupils’ exercise books and hand-outs, during classroom work
5.	Systematic checking of pupils’ homework
6.	Using assessment tests at the end of each subject-unit
7.	Using a variety of assessment methods and techniques (e.g. written, oral, structured, open-ended, test, presentation, etc.)
8.	Using tests that assess different types of knowledge (e.g. application, problem-solving)
9.	Using tests that include items of varied difficulty
10.	Providing individualized feedback to pupils in regard to their homework
11.	Providing individualized feedback to pupils in regard to their test results
12.	Discussing assessment results at the class level, highlighting strengths and weaknesses
13.	Revising and reshaping of teaching method, if assessment results are poor
14.	Maintaining accurate records of pupil performance
15.	Maintaining accurate records of pupil behaviour
16.	Communicating pupil progress to parents, using a range of information
17.	Communicating pupil progress to the School Principal and colleagues, in order to plan coordinated support action

Table 3.

Questionnaire items – professional development (key area 5).

1.	Seeking opportunities to impact on the quality of my teaching
2.	Conducting observation visits to other classrooms
3.	Conducting classroom observation visits to other schools
4.	Participating in teacher networks for professional development
5.	Conducting individual and/or collaborative research on topics of professional interest
6.	Engaging in a mentoring relationship with other colleagues
7.	Disseminating my professional knowledge (e.g. from in-service training, seminars) to colleagues
8.	Seeking school-based professional development/support from external experts (e.g. Advisors, University staff)
9.	Seeking further professional development in knowledge and understanding of areas of the curriculum
10.	Seeking further professional development in knowledge and understanding of instructional practices
11.	Seeking further professional development in student assessment practices
12.	Seeking further professional development in the development of ICT skills for teaching
13.	Seeking further professional development in student discipline and behaviour problems
14.	Seeking further professional development in teaching in a multicultural setting
15.	Seeking further professional development in teaching students with special learning needs

Stage 3 involved the analysis of self-evaluation data to highlight areas for development in the three schools, indicated in the figures as (A), (M) and (S). Primarily, mean scores on the items were obtained for each of the five key areas. Numbered radii (outer circle) corresponded to questionnaire items, while the five circles depicted the five-point Likert scale; the closer the results to the centre, the lower the means were. Although similar patterns were obtained for the three schools, which could be related to the centralization of the educational system and the proclaimed ‘homogeneity’ in allocated resources, a prioritized list of challenges was generated for each setting and was discussed during staff meetings. Specifically, the analyses generated indicated that the three schools had lower means in the items of key area 2 (classroom practices and methodologies) as well as key area 5 (professional development). Again, to provide for an overview of the outcomes of this process, Figures 2 to 4 represent the respective analyses for the key areas 2, 3 and 5 (numbers relate to the corresponding items of Tables 1 to 3).

Figure 2.

Data analyses – classroom practices and methodologies (key area 2).

Figure 3.

Data analyses – monitoring and assessment practices (key area 3).

Figure 4.

Data analyses – professional development (key area 5).

Phase B: generating goals, developing plans, monitoring progress (Stages 4–6)

Stage 4 involved goal prioritization and planning. Specifically, schools were asked to define Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Resourced, Timed (SMART) goals in two areas for improvement: classroom practices and methodologies and professional development. At this point, schools agreed that they would target professional development within the context of actions addressing ‘classroom practices and methodologies’ and not as an area of focus per se. As a result, Saffran decided to enhance pupils’ collaboration and implement classroom visits and peer observations. Masticha focused on pupils’ critical thinking skills; in-house professional development in this direction would include classroom observations, followed by peer reflection. Similarly, Anise set the differentiation in teaching, as the target area. Based on the assumption that ‘only teachers can change teaching, changing teaching is itself a learning process and learning requires support, practice, and feedback’, the school proposed implementation of classroom observations, co-teaching and dialogue about best practices.

Stage 5 provided for the implementation of SI plans. Schools organized professional development activities based on the identified areas, with the support of the CERE as well as external academics/trainers. Stage 6 involved monitoring progress goal through certain measures to ensure progress, a process that resembled internal evaluation towards the goals set.

Phase C: reviewing and revising (Stage 7)

Stage 7 allowed for review and revision. The CERE and each school met to analyse and discuss results of the SI plans. This stage entailed sharing of experiences acquired to enlighten plans for the following year. To draw on the learning occurred, as well as the difficulties encountered and potential developments, results of this process are presented next.

The schools’ perspective: voices on strengths and limitations

Overall, the three schools appeared to embrace SSE efforts and thought of the project as successful. For instance, in Saffran, staff confirmed that ‘this was an excellent chance to systematically implement collaborative learning strategies and learn more about this method’. Teachers suggested that they could trace improvements in the pupils’ working relationships, as well as in verbal communication in class and among peers. In Anise, the school identified value-added contributions of the project to the pupils and the staff. Teachers observed improvements in the students’ performance through activities that ‘suited every pupil’s learning needs’, as well as in low-ability pupils’ confidence since they would now ‘dare to openly present their work in the whole class, and be open to positive feedback from their peers’; pupils appeared more conscious of their personal targets and progress against them (‘motives for learning increased’). Also, teachers argued that the systematic implementation of differentiation enabled them to see ‘observable improvements in each and every one pupil’, which also led to ‘an improvement of the classroom climate’. Most importantly though, staff recorded improvements at the school level, especially since they experienced moral satisfaction from meeting pupils’ needs and helping them succeed in their aims, which subsequently led to a ‘change in culture in relation to teaching styles and approaches, as now we know that in a differentiated classroom the pupils learn, but the teachers learn also’. As one teacher pointed, ‘Before we knew what to teach and how to teach it [. . .] now we know “why” and “who” to teach it to’.

Teachers’ positive stance could be related to the participative nature of the project, since staff were encouraged to, not only take action, but also engage in decision-making throughout all stages. In fact, Masticha teachers argued that the project had been a success, due to ‘the high level of collaboration amongst colleagues’, while Anise staff highlighted collaborative relationships as contributors to success; trust emerged as ‘of imperative importance to overcome colleagues’ defensive mechanisms which acted as barriers to the project’. Primarily, teachers referred to the needs assessment (Phase A), which allowed them to design action according to their needs. As one teacher in Saffran noted, ‘the aims of our project were the result of the staff needs analysis, rather than [the aims] being imposed on us’. In Masticha, teachers indicated that they embraced the project with enthusiasm, due to its focus, since they had an interest in pupils’ critical thinking skills, which were emphasized by the new national curricula. Similarly, Anise teachers highlighted that focus was of relevance: ‘our mixed ability classes present variations in pupils’ learning abilities and needs’; ‘there were those of us [staff] who realised early that through differentiation, we will be able to manage our time in class/teaching more effectively and productively, and thus increase time on task’; ‘improving the effectiveness of [our] teaching through differentiation has benefits for us as teachers and our pupils, who can progress according to their pace’.

Yet, beyond acknowledging the importance of school autonomy in designing action towards improvement, schools highlighted that support in this project was absolutely necessary. To begin with, teachers referred to the important role of the school head. Saffran teachers mentioned that the head ‘regularly initiated discussions and proceeded with the necessary arrangements in the timetable so that we [staff] could be released to observe other colleagues teaching’. In Anise, one teacher noted that ‘the [head’s] contribution was very important, as she managed to add value to the project through classroom observations and discussions she initiated’.

At the same time, schools appeared in need of external help to develop their agenda for SI on self-identified areas. This need seemed related to the structures and the culture of the particular educational system that does not provide mechanisms in support of school self-evaluative activity, as highlighted in another study by Karagiorgi (2011). Specifically, Masticha teachers acknowledged the importance of regular feedback from critical friends (‘they left us wondering whether we are doing a good job and how effective we are’). In this school, staff were also quoted suggesting that although training was useful, this was insufficient to meet their needs, so they asked for ‘more training and on a more frequent basis’. Teachers also underlined the need for national evaluation frameworks to guide SI and respective tools/tests to measure progress and capture the extent of the improvement after implementation of plans. In addition, time emerged as critical. In Saffran, teachers suggested that involvement in SSE ‘was time consuming, especially since there were other projects running in school’, which resulted in high levels of stress. Yet, teachers seemed to manage time problems through joint planning and coordination, as well as continuous informal and formal discussions during staff meetings. Similarly, in Anise, teachers suggested ‘an increase in workload while producing differentiated learning material appropriate for all levels’. Apparently, since they were not released from other duties or responsibilities, teachers thought of SSE as ‘over and above’ their normal workload, that is, as an ‘add-on’ to all other school commitments. In this regard, in the absence of SSE policies or mechanisms for quality assurance, staff appeared to strive to incorporate this project within their normal working lives.

With regard to future plans, teachers noted that the first year served as a pilot phase and resulted in valuable learning experiences. In anticipation of the second year, Saffran teachers expressed the need for ‘closer links with the school’s parents and the other schools in the project’. The head also suggested mechanisms, such as releasing staff from teaching, so that exchange of visits between schools would be possible. Masticha staff planned to ‘continue along the same lines, but set clear and measureable aims and actions’ to make it easy to trace progress. The school also asked for ‘ tools to measure pupils’ current state and subsequently their progress in relation to the critical thinking’. In Anise, the need for closer links with the other two schools and systematic observation of teaching in these settings also emerged as an area for consideration; teachers also pointed to the need to get the parents involved.

Discussion

To begin with, the processes in the three settings – outlined in the two previous sections – resembled similar paths. School teachers interacted to reach consensus on collective aims and actions (Leithwood & Aitken, 1995). Throughout all stages of the project, staff recalled being constantly engaged in interrogation about the nature of the project and its usefulness, while trying to derive meaning from the processes for themselves as professionals and their pupils. Data collection (Stage 2) and analyses (Stage 3) were followed by lengthy discussions among staff as to whether identified areas for improvement reflected their real needs. The small number of teachers in the three case schools seemed to facilitate interaction towards the meaningful interpretation of the data collected during Stage 2, while staff meetings allowed for reflection. Individual school action plans were also drawn, upon consensus among school staff (Stage 4). The process allowed for themes to be chosen according to each school’s needs and fit in with each school’s vision about planning and teaching, an aspect over which schools seemed to have control (Vanhoof & Van Petegem, 2012). In this regard, the project appeared to empower teachers to resume responsibility over SI (Parkin, 1984). As Bubb and Earley (2008) point, winning hearts and minds is crucial in a successful launch for SI initiatives; staff commitment is important to the success of any SSE initiatives (Meuret & Morlaix, 2003). Apparently, this project allowed professionals to explore better understanding of their work and ‘internally develop systems and processes, support the articulation and sharing of knowledge, and use the know-how to improve practice among colleagues’ (Pedder & MacBeath, 2008, p. 220).

At the same time, although the project indicated the necessity and the importance of SSE and highlighted some benefits from investing an effort in this endeavour, there seems to be a long way before SSE is placed at the heart of SI in the particular setting. Despite enthusiasm, schools could not proceed to SSE efforts without sufficient support. As Glaze (2013) argues, while reflecting on intensive SI efforts within the Ontario province, educators often rely on such support. The experiences acquired during the first year of this project and the recommendations for the following year can certainly provide food for thought and pinpoint to certain directions.

Primarily, in view of the complexities involved – since Bubb and Early (2008) suggest that the factors influencing SI are multiple – capacity building emerges as critical. School culture is often described as the modus operandi that determines SE (Kohler-Evans, Webster-Smith, & Albritton, 2013). Yet, the establishment of an internally motivated evaluation culture (Mann & Smith, 2013) is not an easy endeavour, since as Schildkamp, Vanhoof, van Petegem, and Visscher (2012) point, teachers are primarily interested in teaching, and not so much in what happens at the school level, a situation that needs to change by ensuring that staff are perceived as team members rather than individual classroom teachers, since

. . . as team members they are responsible for the quality of education, which implies that they have to engage in school self-evaluation. However, most school staff do not possess the necessary knowledge and skills to engage in school self-evaluation effectively. They need to be trained, for example, in how to select an instrument that is suitable for their own context, as well as how to create involvement and ownership, how to make the goals of the school self-evaluation explicit, how to interpret self-evaluation data, and how to come up with and implement measures to improve the functioning of the school, based on the self-evaluation results. (p. 146)

Apparently, to instil a culture of SSE with an emphasis on SI, where all teachers can communicate openly and honestly about their own experiences, opinions and expectations to generate success (Vanhoof & Van Petegem, 2012), the leader’s role is important. This aspect is also discussed in the respective literature. For instance, while reflecting upon case studies as examples of journeys from SSE to SI, Bubb and Earley (2008) highlight strong leadership as a ‘consistent ingredient’, while Roby (2011) discusses the positive affect of leaders’ efforts towards a culture for continuous learning. Hence, in future developments of similar projects, the potential impact of school leaders on the development of a culture receptive to SSE should not be underestimated. While discussing the views of Cypriot principals on SI, Moustaka-Tsiolakki and Tsiakkiros (2013) also argue that a positive school climate built on trust and a collaborative culture are key factors for the success of any SI initiative.

Second, the critical friend appears as a significant resource. As Swaffield and MacBeath (2005) point, the context often determines the nature of the support required from the critical friend: when SSE serves SI, ‘the latitude for the critical friend is wide and potentially highly creative’, whereas when SSE ‘is mandated and subject to external inspection, the role is more politicized’ (p. 249). In this project, the CERE had this more creative role in getting to know schools, listening and learning. Most importantly, the CERE helped school leaders clarify aims and build commitment. The critical friend was also involved in data collection as well as feeding the data back to the schools, without actually determining how data would be received and subsequently used. Hence, the CERE undertook a quite tedious role in not projecting itself as an evaluator, pinpointing to weaknesses as areas for development, which could possibly lead to school defensiveness. In future developments, the CERE or other institutions/individuals could facilitate this process by providing opportunities for brainstorming and discussions with school staff. The role of evidence in this process is significant, so the CERE – or any other aspiring critical friend – could further assist in

demystifying data, taking the fear out of numbers, making concepts such as value-added accessible and usable. [. . .] Further research-related skills come into play such as advising on different information gathering approaches for different purposes, suggesting innovative, less commonly used methods such as photo or video evaluation, ‘spot checks’ or critical incident analysis [. . .] He or she may suggest, or provide, useful reference sources and readings to stimulate and extend thought and may share knowledge and experience of other schools’ approaches to self-evaluation. (Swaffield & MacBeath, 2005, p. 249)

At the same time, though, as Geijsel et al. (2010) suggest, in SI efforts researchers should not ‘intervene in the school to actually implement the thoughts and changes that result from the data’ (p. 74), so boundaries in roles should be set. In order to tune in with the above, teachers’ professional development could establish that teachers have the skills for the selection of research instruments, the interpretation of data and the planning and monitoring of appropriate action towards the attainment of SI aims.

Third, the development of valid and reliable tools appears as another area to be addressed. As already discussed, in the particular setting performance tables or national test/examination results, access to school inspection reports at the national level, and teacher appraisals or performance-related structures/motives are practically absent. Hence, the situation greatly diverts from that of other educational systems allowing for abundance of data. For instance, while reporting on the UK context, Wroe and Halsall (2001) mention a ‘proliferation of data collection, especially of quantitative performance indicators’ (p. 41), turning schools into data-driven organizations and leading them to be ‘swamped with statistical information and that target setting based on it could become a bureaucratic distraction from the real issue of raising standards’ (p. 49). Livingston (2005) refers to common concerns with the dominance of standards in education and points that the ‘associated close scrutiny of the performance of teachers has become a global obsession’ (p. 167). Cyprus is certainly not in risk of the above. Yet, to highlight areas for improvement, organize actions to improve malfunctions and solve problems, schools in settings that do not have such data in hand need to collect feedback on how well they function. In this project, the three schools adopted the recommendations of the critical friend, but raised questions about the robustness, validity and practicality of the tools to measure such aspects. Hence, even if ‘hard’ SE approaches are to be avoided, steps in the direction of SE would certainly favour the development of SSE activity. As a starting point, the development for indicators of quality or evaluative frameworks could help schools reflect on how well they are doing. The development of appropriate tools could also facilitate SSE processes.

Finally, the role of students as well as the local community should further be explored. Remarkably, two of the schools would like to see further engagement of the community in SSE efforts. Apparently then, schools in Cyprus are getting ready to confront their fears and seek more effective parental involvement (Moustaka-Tsiolakki & Tsiakkiros, 2013). Community collaboration models that ‘escape’ conventional SI planning (e.g. Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010) could be considered, so that strategic partnerships with the families can be strengthened. Interestingly, the SSERT in this project appeared to enhance schools’ capability to improve, but was addressed to teachers only. In this regard, to allow for analyses of school quality across different groups, similar tools could be developed for other stakeholders (e.g. students, parents) and made accessible to schools through online platforms.

Conclusion

Vanhoof and Van Petegem (2012) suggest that SSE is an expression of the trend to shoulder part of the responsibility for developing and guaranteeing educational quality to schools. Cyprus is on its way to make this transition. Yet, internal mechanisms towards school development – ‘integral procedures requiring systematic action on a regular basis’ (Plowright & Godfrey, 2008, p. 53) – need to be further researched into. Obviously, the three case studies discussed in this article can provide insight into how self-evaluation projects can be carried out in contexts that lack systemic structures in support of such practices. Although reliance on three cases only is certainly a limitation, useful conclusions can be drawn to further develop understanding of SI agendas and highlight the way forward. Apparently, any ‘replication’ of imported models of SSE should be avoided (Clarke, Ainscow, & West, 2009; Smith, 2012); evidence emerging from SSE projects – such as this one – suggests the need for approaches to SI that are differentiated and finely grained (Harris & Chrispeels, 2009), according to the setting.

Footnotes

Funding

The research presented in this article was undertaken within the framework of the Comenius Regio Partnership project ‘School Self-Evaluation’. The authors would like to thank the European Commission for the financial support for this project. Views presented do not reflect the views of either the European Commission or the Foundation for the Management of European (EU) Lifelong Learning Programmes (LLP) in Cyprus.

References

Anderson-Butcher

Lawson

H. A.

Iachini

Flaspohler

Bean

Wade-Mdivanian

(2010). Emergent evidence in support of a community collaboration model for school improvement. Children & Schools, 32, 160–171.

Benjamin

(2014). Shifting from data to evidence for decision making. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 45–49.

Blok

Sleegers

Karsten

(2008). Looking for a balance between internal and external evaluation of school quality: Evaluation of the SVI model. Journal of Education Policy, 23, 379–395.

Bubb

Earley

(2008). From self-evaluation to school improvement. Education Journal, 113, 12–13.

Carr

Kemmis

(1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Lewes, UK: Falmer.

Clarke

Ainscow

West

(2009). Learning from difference. In Harris

Chrispeels

(Eds.), Improving schools and educational systems (pp. 77–89). London, England: Routledge.

Cohen

Manion

(1997). Research methods in education. London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Creemers

B. P. M.

(2002). From school effectiveness and school improvement to effective school improvement: Background, theoretical analysis, and outline of the empirical study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 8, 343–362.

Creemers

B. P. M.

Kyriakides

(2006). Critical analysis of the current approaches to modeling educational effectiveness: The importance of establishing a dynamic model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 347–366.

10.

Davies

Rudd

(2001). Evaluating school self-evaluation: LGA educational research programme. Slough, UK: NFER.

11.

Debate on Educational Reform. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.paideia.org.cy/index.php

12.

De Crauwe

Naidoo

(2004a). Introduction. In De Crauwe

Naidoo

(Eds.), School evaluation for quality improvement (pp. 11–13). Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning.

13.

De Crauwe

Naidoo

(2004b). Seminar report: School evaluation for quality improvement: Issues and challenges. In De Crauwe

Naidoo

(Eds.), School evaluation for quality improvement (pp. 15–40). Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning.

14.

Demetriou

Kyriakides

(2012). The impact of school self-evaluation upon student achievement: A group randomisation study. Oxford Review of Education, 38, 149–170.

15.

Geijsel

F. P.

Krüger

M. L.

Sleegers

P. C.

(2010). Data feedback for school improvement: The role of researchers and school leaders. Australian Educational Researcher, 37, 59–75.

16.

Glaze

(2013). How Ontario spread successful practices across 5,000 schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 95, 44–50.

17.

Harris

Chrispeels

(2009). Introduction. In Harris

Chrispeels

(Eds.), Improving schools and educational systems (pp. 3–22). London, England: Routledge.

18.

Hofman

Dukstra

Hofman

(2005). School self-evaluation instruments: An assessment framework. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 8, 253–272.

19.

Holly

Whitehead

(1986). Collaborative action research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Institute of Education.

20.

Kapachtsi

Kakana

(2012). Initiating collaborative action research after the implementation of school self-evaluation. International Studies in Educational Administration, 40, 35–45.

21.

Karagiorgi

(2011). School Self Evaluation at an Embryonic Stage: Depicting teachers’ experiences with a participative project. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15, 199-220.

22.

Kohler-Evans

Webster-Smith

Albritton

(2013). Conversations for school personnel: A new pathway to school improvement. Education, 134, 19–24.

23.

Kyriakides

(2001). Aξιoλόγηση και Λoγoδότηση τoυ Eκπαιδϵυτικoύ: Aντιλήψϵις Eκπαιδϵυτικών και Γoνιών [Evaluation and teacher accountability. Parents and teachers views]. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Cyprus Educational Society, Nicosia, Cyprus.

24.

Leithwood

Aitken

(1995). Making schools smarter: A system for monitoring school and district progress. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.

25.

Leung

(2005). Accountability versus school development: Self-evaluation in an international school in Hong Kong. International Studies in Educational Administration, 33(1), 2–14.

26.

Livingston

(2005). Evaluation: Judgemental or developmental? European Journal of Teacher Education, 28, 165–178.

27.

MacBeath

(2008). Leading learning in the self-evaluating school. School Leadership and Management, 28, 385–399.

28.

Mann

Smith

(2013). Promoting rigor-in-practice through school self-evaluation: A middle school’s experience with model development, implementation, and evaluation. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 37(4), 1–15.

29.

McNiff

(1993). Teaching as learning: An action research approach. London, England: Routledge.

30.

McNiff

(1997). Action research for professional development: Concise advice for new action researchers. Retrieved from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp

31.

Meuret

Morlaix

(2003). Conditions of success of a school’s self-evaluation: Some lessons of a European experience. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14, 53–71.

32.

Moelands

Ouborg

(1998, September 20). School self evaluation in primary education in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER98), Ljubljana, Slovenia.

33.

Moustaka-Tsiolakki

Tsiakkiros

(2013). The views of Cypriot primary school principals on school improvement: Leadership for learning. International Studies in Educational Administration, 41, 3–17.

34.

Muijs

Reynolds

(2001). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London, England: SAGE.

35.

Mulford

(2005). Accountability policies and their effects. In Bascia

Cumming

Datnow

Leithwood

Livingstone

(Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 281–295). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

36.

Neil

Johnston

(2005). An approach to analysing professional discourse in a school self-evaluation project. Research in Education, 73, 73–86.

37.

Parkin

J. B.

(1984). School self-evaluation and the management of change. Sheffield, UK: Department of Education and Management.

38.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

39.

Pedder

MacBeath

(2008). Organisational learning approaches to school leadership and management: Teachers’ values and perceptions of practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 207–224.

40.

Peng

W. J.

Thomas

Yang

(2006). Developing school evaluation methods to improve the quality of schooling in China: A pilot ‘value added’ study’. Assessment in Education, 13, 135–154.

41.

Plowright

Godfrey

(2008). School self-evaluation: Can head teachers meet the new challenge? International Studies in Educational Leadership, 36, 35–58.

42.

Privitelli

Bezzina

(2006, October 12–17). School-based self-evaluation: An introductory study from Malta. Paper presented at the CCEAM Conference Recreating Linkages between Theory and Praxis in Educational Leadership, Nicosia, Cyprus.

43.

Roby

(2011). Teacher leaders impacting school culture. Education, 131, 782–790.

44.

Scheerens

Bosker

R. J.

(1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

45.

Schildkamp

Vanhoof

van Petegem

Visscher

(2012). The use of school self-evaluation results in the Netherlands and Flanders. British Educational Research Journal, 38, 125–152.

46.

Smith

(2012). School self-evaluation: A Jamaican perspective. Journal of Third World Studies, 29, 137–153.

47.

Stringer

(1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

48.

Swaffield

MacBeath

(2005). School self-evaluation and the role of a critical friend. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 239–252.

49.

Vanhoof

Van Petegem

(2012). The process and results of school self-evaluation through the eyes of experts: A Delphi study. International Studies in Educational Administration, 40, 47–61.

50.

Wrigley

(2013). Rethinking school effectiveness and improvement: A question of paradigms. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34, 31–47.

51.

Wroe

Halsall

(2001). School self-evaluation. Research in Education, 65, 41-54.