Self-evaluation is now seen as a priority in most economically advanced countries. This expansion in monitoring and accountability has been driven by influential political ideologies and, in a European context, an increasing concern with standardizing key educational indicators (e.g. OECD, 2005) and a widespread emphasis on self-regulation. A case in point is the SED (Self-evaluation Document), which was introduced in England in both the compulsory and post-compulsory teacher training sectors as an ‘optional’, annual self-evaluation exercise. It was introduced in 2008 and is designed to be a tool to help providers evaluate the effectiveness of their provision and an instrument to support the preparation and planning of Ofsted inspections (TDA 2009).

Objectives

This study was commissioned by the Universities’ Council for Education of Teachers (UCET) to evaluate the SED process in terms of its benefits as perceived by providers of initial teacher training. Its objectives were to explore the:

o   Background and purpose of the Teacher Development Agency (TDA)/Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) SED process in England.

o   Methodological basis of the SED questions and the review process.

o   Perceived benefit to the sector in terms of the efficacy of the self-evaluation process in increasing the quality of training and improvement planning.

o   Perceived coherence of the principles underpinning evaluative instruments employed in the ITE sector and, in particular, the synergy of the self-evaluation exercise with the inspection process.

o   Perceived value of the process in terms of the development of policy and practice for other stakeholders.

o   Resource implications of the exercise including the full cost to the public purse.

Theoretical framework
An evaluation framework consisting of six levels, developed by Guskey (2000), and revised by Muijs and Lindsey (2008), was modified for use in this study to analyse both quantitative survey data and qualitative survey and interview data.

Level 1: SED authors’ responses to the self-evaluation process including: the content of the SED; the process, including guidance and briefing prior to submission; and, the relevance of content and process to context

Level 2: SED authors’ learning from the self-evaluation process including procedural/practical knowledge and higher level knowledge

Level 3: Partnership’s use of new knowledge and skill in relation to the management of change includes both that used within the institution and with other institutions/partners in the training process.

Level 4: Embedding of self-evaluation in institutional and sector level quality assurance, in particular its synergy with institutional improvement planning cycles and the Ofsted inspection process.

Level 5: Impact on trainee outcomes in terms of additional improved trainee outcomes directly as a result of the SED process 

Level 6: Cost-effectiveness of self-evaluation and if there are other, more cost effective, ways of delivering the benefits

Foucault, M. (1978) Governmentality in G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.[pp. 87-104] Hemel Hempstead: Harves Miliband, D. (2003) School leadership: The productivity challenge. Speech by David Miliband MP, Minister of State for School Standards at the National College for School Leadership, Nottingham, 22nd October 2003 Muijs, D. and Lindsey, G (2008) ‘Where are we at? An empirical study of levels and methods of evaluating continuing professional development’, British Educational Research Journal, 34 (2): 195-211. OECD (2005) Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers (Paris, OECD). Ofsted, 2005), The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools 2003/04: Summary. London: The Stationary Office Plowright, D (2008) Using self-evaluation for inspection: how well prepared are primary headteachers? School leadership and management, 28(2). 101-126. Schildkamp, K, Visscher, A. and Luyten, H. (2009) School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 20 (1), 69–88. Schön, D (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books TDA (2009) The Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) self-evaluation document (SED) Guidance for providers of initial teacher training (ITT) (London, TDA).