LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gustafsson, Jan-Eric; Lander, Rolf; Myrberg, Eva (2014)
Publisher: Education Inquiry
Journal: Education Inquiry
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: school inspection; quality audit; regular supervision; programme theory; generative mechanisms; transactionalism
The article outlines a programme theory for the Swedish school inspection. The theory has a format of ‘if … then … because’, whereby the last term states one or more generative mechanisms behind the reactions to inspection, and the former terms imply what the inspectorate does and which reactions it receives. The assumptions of the theory are tested regarding their precision of definition, consistency and empirical status. No research has as yet confirmed a general positive effect of the Swedish inspection on learning and school development. Programme theory, however, suggests that such effects are mostly context-dependent, and thus will vary between schools and school authorities. A complicating feature of the present inspection is its objectivist ethos, which is at odds with the Swedish tradition of a transactional ethos in inspections.Keywords: school inspection, quality audit, regular supervision, programme theory, generative mechanisms, transactionalism(Published: 8 December 2014)Citation: Education Inquiry (EDUI) 2014, 5, 23862,http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/edui.v5.23862
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Astbury, B. & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes. Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363 381.
    • Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. (2003). Udviklingsdialoger. Strategi, forløb og effektvurdering [Developmental dialogues. Strategy, process and evaluation of effects]. Ko¨penhamn.
    • de Wolf, I. F. & Janssens, F. J. G. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education. An overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379 396.
    • Du Rietz, L., Lundgren, U. P. & Wenn˚as, O. (1987). Ansvarsfo¨rdelning och styrning p˚a skolomr˚adet. Ett beredningsunderlag utarbetat inom utbildningsdepartementet [Distribution of responsibility and governing in schooling]. DsU 1987.1. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
    • Chen, H. (1990). Issues in constructing program theory. In Advances in Program Theory, L. Bickman (ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • Ehren, M. C. M. (2011). Risk-based school inspections of Dutch schools and school boards. A critical reflection on intended effects and causal mechanisms. Manuscript.
    • Ehren, M. C. M., Leeuw, F. L. & Scheerens, J. (2005). On the impact of the Dutch Educational Supervision Act. Analyzing assumptions concerning the inspection of primary education. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 60 76.
    • Ehren, M. C. M. & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The relationships between school inspections, school characteristics and school improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205 227.
    • Ekholm, M. (2012). Samverkan i styrningen [Cooperation in governing]. http://www.eveduc.com/ images/doc/vagval_i_skolans_historia_samverkan_styrningen.pdf
    • Ekholm, M. & Lindvall, K. (2008). Skolinspektioner - i tid och otid [School inspections time and not so due time]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 13(1), 41 58.
    • House, E. R. (1981). Evaluation with validity. Beverly Hills: Sage.
    • Husfeldt, V. (2011). Wirkungen und Wirksamkeit der externen Schulevaluation. U¨berblick zum Stand der Forschung. Zeitung f¨ur Erziehungswissenschaft, 14, 259 28.
    • Hussain, I. (2012). Subjective performance evaluation in the public sector. Evidence from school inspections. CEE DP 135. London School of Economics. Centre for the Economics of Education.
    • Isling, A˚. (1988). Det pedagogiska arvet. Kampen f¨or och emot en demokratisk skola 2 [The pedagogical heritage. The fight for and against a democratic school, part 2]. Stockholm: Sober Fo¨rlag.
    • Jarl, M. (2012). Skolan och det kommunala huvudmannaskapet [The school and the municipal authorityship]. Malm¨o: Gleerups.
    • Jarl, M., Fredrikson, A. & Persson, S. (2011). New public management in public education. A catalyst for the professionalization of Swedish school principals. Public Administration. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01995.x.
    • Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Lander, R. & Granstro¨m, K. (2000). Skolinspektion i England och Sverige. Hj¨alp till sj¨alvhj¨alp eller sj¨alvstyrning med betslet i munnen? [School inspection in England and Sweden . . .]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 5(3), 215 234.
    • Lawn, M. & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education. Governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium Books.
    • Leeuw, F. L. & Furubo, J.-E. (2008). Evaluation systems. What are they and why study them? Evaluation, 14(2), 157 169.
    • Levaˇci´c, R. (1995). Local management of schools. Analysis and practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
    • Lewin, L. (2014). Staten fa˚r inte abdikera SOU 2014:5. [The state must not abdicate Utbildningsdepartementet.
    • Luginbuhl, R., Webbink, D. & De Wolf, I. (2009). Do inspections improve primary school performance? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 221 237.
    • Lundgren, E. (2013). Subjektspositioner spelar roll. Hur diskurser kan . . . [Subject positioning plays a part. How discourses . . .]. Examensarbete (PDA 252) vid institutionen fo¨r pedagogik och specialpedagogik, Go¨teborgs universitet.
    • NAE. (2012). Likva¨rdig utbildning i svensk grundskola. En kvantitativ analys av likva¨rdighet o¨ver tid [Equal education in the Swedish comprehensive school . . .]. Stockholm: Skolverket [The National Authority of Education].
    • Nytell, H. (2006). Fr˚an kvalitetsid´e till kvalitetsregim. Om statlig styrning av skolan [From ideas of quality to a regime of quality. About state governing of schools]. Uppsala Studies in Education No, 114. Uppsala. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
    • Pagil, M. (2008). N¨ar staten axlar sitt ansvar - en studie av den la˚gm¨alda kampen kring skolinspektionen [When the state takes responsibility a study of the low-voiced struggle about the school inspection]. Uppsats inom l¨ararutbildningen, Rapportnummer HT08-2611- 213. Go¨teborgs universitet.
    • Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: SAGE.
    • Pettersson, S. & Wallin, E. (1998). Ma˚lstyrning och resultatansvar [Management-of-objectives and responsibility for results]. I Analyser och utv¨arderingar 1996 97, Skolverket. Stockholm: Liber.
    • Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? Ofsted inspections and school examinations in the UK. Economics of Education Review, 23, 143 151.
    • Ro¨nnberg, L. (2011). Exploring the intersection between marketisation and central state control through school inspection. Education Inquiry, 2(4), 689 707.
    • Ro¨nnberg, L., Lindgren, J. & Segerholm, C. (2013). In the public eye. Swedish school inspection and local newspapers. Exploring the audit media relationship. Journal of Education Policy, 28(2), 178 197.
    • Sandstro¨m, B., Arvidson, C. & Landahl, J. (2005). Engagemang i slott och koja. Om effekter i utvecklingsdialogerna [. . . about effects in the developmental dialogues]. Stockholm: Myndigheten fo¨r skolutveckling.
    • SFS. (2011:556). Fo¨rordning med instruktion fo¨r Statens skolinspektion [Instruction for the Swedish school inspection]. Regeringskansliet.
    • SFS. (2010.800). Skollag. [Educational Act 2010.800]. http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index. aspx?nid 3911&bet 2010.800
    • Shaw, I., Newton, D. P., Aitkin, M. & Darnell, R. (2003). Do Ofsted inspections of secondary schools make a difference to GCSE results? British Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 63 75.
    • Skolinspektionen. (2008). A˚rsredovisning 2008. [Yearly report 2008]. Dnr 10-2008-411. Stockholm.
    • Skolinspektionen. (2009a). Vi v¨assar pennan. Skolinspektion f¨or kunskap och kvalitet [Sharpening the pen. School inspections focusing on knowledge and quality]. Stockholm: Skolinspektionen and Norsteds JuridikAB/Fritzes.
    • Skolinspektionen. (2009b). A˚rsredovisning 2009 [Yearly report 2009]. Dnr 10-2009-4224. Stockholm.
    • Skolinspektionen. (2010a). The inspectorate of educational inspection of Sweden. http://www. skolinspektionen.se/PageFiles/1854/SwedishSchoolsInspectorate2009.pdf?epslanguage en
    • Skolinspektionen. (2010b). A˚rsredovisning 2010 [Yearly report 2010]. Dnr 10-2010-6658. Stockholm.
    • Skolinspektionen. (2012b). A˚rsredovisning 2012 [Yearly report 2012]. Dnr 10-2012-5700. Stockholm.
    • Smith, G. (2000). Research and inspection. HMI and OFSTED, 1981 1996 Oxford Review of Education, 26(3), 333 352.
    • Weiss, C. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21, 501 524.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from