School inspections have been widely implemented by many European countries as one of their major mechanisms to assure and promote school quality. Recent literature reviews (e.g. Luginbuhl et al. 2007; Ehren & Visscher, 2008; Kotthoff & Böttcher, 2010; Husfeldt 2011; Klerks in prep.) indicate that the overall results of inspection research are, at present, far from conclusive as to the question whether or not inspection systems contribute to the aspired quality goals.

Objectives and theoretical framework: Husfeldt (2011) has argued that one reason for inconclusive research findings is to be found in the lack of theoretical models which account for the specific features of inspection approaches and for the in-school processes which mediate between school inspections and their intended mid- and long-term results, such as school’s enhanced improvement capacity, high-quality learning conditions, and, ultimately, improvement of student learning.

The paper aims to contribute to more elaborate conceptual frameworks for understanding inspection processes and results. It is based on the conceptual model proposed by Ehren et al. (2013). They reconstructed the processes and mechanisms by which six European inspectorates aim to monitor school quality and stimulate school improvement from an analysis of legal and administrative documents and interviews with relevant officials. Findings were consolidated in a ‘conceptual model’ of school inspection which identified three overarching ‘effective mechanisms’ attributed to school inspections, i.e.: By ‘Setting expectations”, by ‘Giving feedback’ (if feedback is accepted and understood by schools) and by ‘Stimulating the school’s stakeholders to act’ inspections aim to drive improvement and self-evaluation of schools.

Research questions

National inspection systems vary in their composition of elements and in their contextual features (see Ehren et al. 2013). The role of “pressure” seems to be a crucial element in understanding the operation of inspection systems. For Reezigt and Creemers (2005) “pressure to develop” is an important external condition for effective school development. Some inspection systems include minimal thresholds, labelling of schools, and sanctions for failing schools based on the assumption that “pressure” on schools (through administrative consequences, stakeholder pressure, and/or competitive advantages) is an important lever to make schools conform to inspection standards and to react on inspection results. Other inspection systems do not apply such consequences and work on the assumption that “insight” of schools (Böttger-Beer & Koch, 2008) into the goals and developmental options presented by inspections is an essential impulse for improvement and that “trust” within the school and with its constituencies is a core resource of improvement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Elstad et al. (2012) have recently argued that teachers show more constructive development behaviour in school systems with “less pressure and more trust.

The following research questions will be explored:

1. Do inspection systems which are associated with more “pressure” on schools promote more, less or qualitatively different development activities?
2. Do principals who experience more “trust” (within schools and with their stakeholders) than others ‑ or more “pressure” respectively ‑ report on more, less or qualitatively different development activities in their schools?

Böttger-Beer, M., & Koch, E. (2008). Externe Schulevaluation in Sachsen. In W. Böttcher, W. Bos, H. Döbert & H.G. Holtappels (Hrsg.), Bildungsmonitoring und Bildungscontrolling in nationaler und internationaler Perspektive (pp. 253-264). Münster: Waxmann. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A Core Resource of Improvement. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. Ehren, M.C.M., & Visscher, A.J. (2008). The Relationship between School Inspections, School Characteristics and School Improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205-227. Ehren, M.C.M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on teaching and learning; Describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in seven European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 25; DOI 10.1007/s11092-012-9156-4 Elstad, E., Christophersen, K.A. & Turmo, A. (2012) The strength of accountability and teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour, Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), pp. 612 - 628. Gustafsson, J.-E., Ehren, M.C.M., Conyngham, G., McNamara, G., Altrichter, H. & O’Hara, J. (2012). School inspections and school improvement: testing assumptions on causal mechanisms. Unpubl. Ms. (under review). Husfeldt, V. (2011). Wirkungen und Wirksamkeit der externen Schulevaluation. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 14(2), 259-282. Klerks, M. (in prep.). The effect of school inspections: a systematic review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Kotthoff, H.-G. & Böttcher, W. (2010). Neue Formen der „Schulinspektion“. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Hrsg.), Handbuch Neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (pp. 295-325). Wiesbaden: VS. Luginbuhl, R., Webbink, D. & De Wolf, I. (2007). Do School Inspections Improve Primary School Performance? CPB-paper, nr. 83. http://www.cpb.nl/nl/pub/cpbreeksen/discussie/83/disc83.pdf Maag Merki, K. (2011). Accountability systems and their effects on school processes and student learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 177-179. Reezigt, G.J. & Creemers, B.P. (2005). A comprehensive framework for effective school improvement. School effectiveness and school improvement 16 (4), 407-424.