This paper reports on the second phase of an Erasmus + project titled “Polycentric Inspection of Networked Schools” which is seeking to evaluate the capability of polycentric inspection and school network collaborative self-evaluation to enhance the quality of educational provision in four European countries: Northern Ireland, The Netherlands, England and Bulgaria. This paper concentrates for the most part on the Northern Ireland element of the project.

In comparison to single unit inspections, there is very little, if any research relating to the impact or for that matter, potential impact of inspection on networks of schools. Research on the effects of school inspection have primarily focussed on evaluation of individual schools. (See: McNamara and O’Hara, 2012, 2013; Dedering and Muller, 2013; Ehren et al, 2013).  On the other hand, Feyes and Devos (2014) make the observation that ’ in the public and non-profit sector, collaboration is no longer simply an option; it has become the new orthodoxy’(2014, p.1). As a result, given the extent to which school networking has become embedded into the educational frameworks of most countries, it is important that research deconstruct the factors related to the successful implementation and integration of school network inspection, more commonly referred to as polycentric inspection (See Brown, McNamara and O’Hara 2015, Ehren et al 2015).

The underlying theory of polycentric network evaluation that forms the theoretical framework for this paper is that, when schools reach a certain quality threshold, they can achieve further improvement not simply by single unit internal/external evaluations but by joint learning between networks of schools, communities and the inspectorate through a process of collaborative, quality assured network evaluation. However, for this mode of evaluation to work in practice there needs to be a redefinition of accountability and development from a polycentric evaluation perspective. That is: ‘at the level of the network as a whole, development evaluation implies joint learning among all participating agencies and organizations of the network, not primarily the learning of each individual agency or organization’ (Herrting and Verdung, p.37, 2012); accountability evaluation is horizontally driven, not by virtue of hierarchical command and control processes but  rather,  through  that  of  reciprocal  relationships  and joint  evaluation  activities between  inspectorates  and  the  various  constituent  actors  within  the  network. 

Typically, we suggest that, polycentric evaluation is implemented by stakeholders outside of the day to day operations of the network and, in comparison to single unit evaluations, involves some or all of the following dimensions:

Methodology:

Inspections of networks of school’s/service providers.

Explaining and predicting – Interpretation, understanding and validating knowledge within the network.

Valuing

Evaluator facilitates the valuing by stakeholders.

Goal-free, flexible and adaptable to stakeholder needs.

Use/User involvement

Involvement of wider group of stakeholders.

Schools/network acts as end users of evaluation findings.

Involvement of stakeholders in definition, process, product, cost-benefit analysis stage.

Project aims

Whereas phase 1 of the project that forms the overarching theme for this presentation provided a conceptual framework within which to understand polycentrism as it applies in inspection theory and practice;  phase 2  provides an analysis of the impact of polycentric inspection on those users (parents and teachers) who are on the receiving end of this approach to evaluation and seeks to ascertain to what exten do:

-        teachers feel that this approach to evaluation differs to monocentric single school inspection?

-        teachers feel that this approach to evaluation has had an effect on practice?

-         teachers feel that polycentric inspection ultimately revolves around the notion of groups working closely together and feeling that their opinions  are  making an impact and  being taken seriously?

-      antecedent variables affect the quality polycentric network evaluations?

Alkin, M. C. (Ed.). (2013). Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Barber, M. (2004) The Virtue of Accountability: System Redesign, Inspection, and Incentives in the Era of Informed Professionalism. Journal of Education. 85 (1), p.7-32. Brown, M., McNamara, G. and O Hara, J. (2015) School Inspection in a Polycentric Context: The case of Northern Ireland. Dublin: Centre for Evaluation Quality and Inspection. Available at: https://www.dcu.ie/ceqie/sei/publications.shtml • Ehren, M.C.M.., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G. and O'Hara, J. (2013) Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25, (1) p. 3-43. Ehren, M.C.M. and Perryman, J. (submitted). School inspections in a polycentric context; Ofsted and a self-improving school system. Journal of Education Policy. Meyer, J and Rowan, M. (1977) The Effects of Education as an Institution. American Journal of Sociology 83, p. 55-77. McNamara G and Nayir K (2014) The Increasingly Central Role of School Self-evaluation in Inspection Systems across Europe: The Case of Ireland. Turkish Journal of Education, 3 (1): 48- 59. McNamara G and O’Hara J (2008a) The importance of the concept of self- evaluation in the changing landscape of education policy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34 (3): 173-179. McNamara G. and O’Hara J (2008b) Trusting schools and teachers: developing educational professionalism through self-evaluation. New York: Peter Lang. Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252. West, M. (2010). School-to-school cooperation as a strategy for improving student outcomes in challenging contexts. School effectiveness and school improvement, 21(1), 93-112.