The European Union , through the publications of recent years (e.g. Key Data on Education in Europe, 2012; Comparative Study on Quality Assurance in EU School Education Systems – Policies, procedures and practices, 2015; Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe, 2015) focuses strongly on the educational role as a  means of   construction of the european identity and reinforcement of the financial sector through  the comparison of the educational outcomes of its members states by evaluating a common total of qualitative indicators for their educational systems , exchanging  good practices and continuously improving their educational practices via evaluation. The indicators, selected to present the educational systems of the Member States, mainly concern the students' levels in the basic skills (reading, mathematics, science) and the success rates in higher education and employment. Through these publications, we conclude that the approach of the European committees clearly focuses on the economy. These indicators are rather restrictive and cannot be considered to cover the whole educational work of schools, let alone correspond to the expectations of the European Union for the stable production not only of the high learning performance but also of the students' universal inclusion and all those directly involved in the educational process, i.e. the school members themselves. The EU's approach is not consistent with the social reality of schools, which are multidimensional systems and do not focus exclusively on economic growth. The evaluation indicators utilized, must be free of economic, ideological and technocratic content and reflect the complexity of social reality and the perception of schools as  self-referential, autopoietic and  self-thinking systems. Schools operate in a context of constant external changes, requiring a series of changes within the school. This means that they need to manage their environment as an ever-increasing complexity by increasing their own complexity as a development of internal differentiation and organizational maturity. The indicators related to their work cannot be distant from the context in which they operate and not be placed as the main entity in shaping and managing this work. As it can be seen from the above, the need for a critical reflection of concepts and methods, within the framework of European education policy arises. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the shortages in the European educational discourse regarding the evaluation of the school units and to propose the adaptation of the evaluation indicators to the development of the dimensions of organized complexity by examining the issue of the evaluation of organizations from Niklas Luhmann's viewpoint of the social systems theory, based on the perception of the school as a self-referential, autopoietic and self-thinking system.

Methology: Critical content analysis The study is based on the analysis of the issue of school evaluation through the publications and legislation of the EU, starting with the Constitution of the European Parliament and Council on February 12th 2001 on the European cooperation for the quality evaluation in school education , until today. This analysis will be based on a categorical system of detection and classification of the current evaluation indicators. This system will be constructed on the basis of Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Social Systems, focusing on the dimensions of complexity.

Through the critical analysis of the guidance documents of the EU , we are expected to reveal the limited and time-consuming viewpoint of the European documents on the schoolwork and the need for a thorough review of the way in which evaluation is being treated at the level of European education policy and the development of school units in general . Furthermore, the recognition of the external complexity within which schools operate and the development and organization of the dimensions of their own internal complexity are expected to become an appropriate model for the assessment of school units adapted to their own special circumstances.

• Bozkuş, K. (2014). School as a Social System. SUJE, 4(1), 49. • Bronkhorst, L., Baartman, L., & Stokking, K. (2012). The explication of quality standards in self-evaluation. Assessment In Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(3), 357-378. • Bunyard, D. (2010). Niklas Luhmann: a systems view of education and school improvement. Educational Futures, 2(3), 3-15. • Cuttance, P. (1994). Monitoring Educational Quality through Performance Indicators for School Practice. School Effectiveness And School Improvement, 5(2), 101-126. • European Commission. (2015). Comparative Study on Quality Assurance in EU School Education Systems – Policies, procedures and practices. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. • European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice(2015). Assuring Quality in Education: Policies and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. • European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2016. Structural Indicators for Monitoring Education and Training Systems in Europe – 2016. Eurydice Background Report to the Education and Training Monitor 2016. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. • Hulpia, H. & Valcke, M. (2004). The Use of Performance Indicators in a School Improvement Policy: The Theoretical and Empirical Context. Evaluation & Research In Education, 18(1-2), 102-119. • Mattheis, C. (2012). The System Theory of Niklas Luhmann and the Constitutionalization of the World Society. Goettingen Journal Of International Law, 4(2), 625-647. • Qvortrup, L. (2005). Society's Educational system-An introduction to Niklas Luhmann's pedagogical theory. Seminar.Net, 1(1), 8-15. • Snyder, K. (2007). The European Education Quality Benchmark System: helping teachers to work with information to sustain change. European Journal Of Education, 42(3), 425-435. • Willke, H.(1993). Systemtheorie: eine Einfuhrung in die Grundprobleme der Theorie sozialer Systeme, 4. Uberarb. Aufl.Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.