Led On Line
Presentazione - About us
Novita' - What's new
Lededizioni Home Page Ricerca - Search
Catalogo - Catalogue
Per contattarci - Contacts
Per gli Autori - For the Authors
Statistiche - Statistics
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

The Evidence Base for School Inspection Frameworks

Jaap Scheerens, Melanie Ehren


This article describes how Inspectorates of Education operationalize different inspection goals (control, improvement, liaison) in their inspection indicator frameworks. The paper provides an overview and examples of the indicators used across a number of countries and how these are incorporated in inspection frameworks to evaluate and assess schools with the purpose of control, improvement and liaison. We shall describe the inspection and assessment of the processes and results of schooling (which includes making expert judgements), and compare and contrast them with inspection frameworks that focus on controlling input requirements and checking compliance to legislation. We will discuss the value and adequateness of different frameworks in the light of recent school effectiveness research. The results collected suggested that teaching/instruction level conditions, such as high expectations, a challenging teaching approach, an orderly learning environment and clear and structured teaching are more important than school level conditions in improving student achievement. Most inspectorates however do not explicitly evaluate teaching or teachers on a classroom/subject or grade level, preferring instead to evaluate school level conditions and general instruction characteristics or teaching patterns such as learning time, school leadership and school climate. A final «council» to further and future developments of national school inspection frameworks is therefore the relative emphasis on school organizational as compared to teaching and learning, or didactic standards. A prudent warning could be for designers and adaptors of inspection frameworks not to lose sight of the primary process of teaching and learning.


European countries; Evidence base research; Inspection indicator; School effectiveness; School inspection; Efficacia della scuola; Indicatori dell’ispezione; Ispezione scolastica; Paesi Europei; Ricerca basata sull’evidenza

Full Text:



American Statistical Association (2014). ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved (January 2015) from: https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf

Bosker, R. J., Guldemond, H. G., Hofman, R. H., & Hofman, W. H. A. (1989). De stabiliteit van schoolkwaliteit. In J. Scheerens & J. C. Verhoeven (Hg.), Schoolorganisatie, beleid en onderwijskwaliteit. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis (1995 update). Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, School Improvement Research Series.

Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness. London - New York: Routledge.

De Grauwe, A. (2007). Module 7. Alternative models in reforming school supervision. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Cap_Dev_Training/Training_Materials/Supervision/SUP_Mod7.pdf

De Volder, I. (2012). Externe schoolevaluaties in Europa. Een vergelijkend onderzoek. Antwerpen: Grant uitgevers.

Dijkstra, A. B., De la Motte, P. I., Ehren, M. C. M., & Eilard, A. (2014). Discussion. School inspections and school improvement in the social domain. The assessment of social outcomes of education. In A. B. Dijkstra & P. I. De la Motte (Eds.), Social outcomes of education: The assessment of social outcomes and school improvement through school inspections (pp. 189-215). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). The price of misassignment: The role of teaching assignments in Teach for America teachers’ exit from low-income schools and the teaching profession. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 299-323.

Eddy Spicer, D., Ehren, M., Bangpan, M., & Khatwa, M. (2014). Under what conditions do inspection, monitoring and assessment improve system efficiency, service delivery and learning outcomes for the poorest and most marginalised? A realist synthesis of school accountability in low- and middle-income countries. Protocol. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=x-3hzguBXhY%3D&tabid=3174

Ehren, M. C. M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on school improvement: Describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 3-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11092-012-9156-4

Gray, J., Jesson, D., Goldstein, H., Hedges, K., & Rasbash, J. (1995). A multi-level analysis of school improvement: Changes in school’s performance over time. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6, 97-114.

Hamilton, L. S., & Koretz, D. M. (2002). Tests and their use in test-based accountability systems. In L. S. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. P. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand cooperation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1554/

Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economics Literature, 24(3), 1141-1177.

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 141-164.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harries, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 257-281.

Levine, D. K., & Lezotte, L. W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Centre for Effective Schools Research and Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2003a). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey. http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-most-improved-school-systems-keep-getting-better/

Muijs, D., Creemers, B., Kyriakides, L., Van der Werf, G., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). Teaching effectiveness. A state of the art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24, 231-256.

Popham, W. J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Purkey, S. C., & M. S. Smith (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 427-452.

Reynolds et al. (2014). Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Townsend, T., Van Damme, J., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2012). Educational Effectiveness Research (EER): A state of the art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 197-230.

Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: OFSTED.

Scheerens, J. (1992). Effective schooling, research, theory and practice. London: Cassell.

Scheerens, J. (2013). What is effective schooling? A review of current thought and practice. Paper for the International Baccalaureate Organization. Washington, DC.

Scheerens, J. (2014). School, teaching and system effectiveness: Some comments on three state of the art reviews. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25, 282-290.

Scheerens, J., & Creemers, B. P. M. (1989). Conceptualizing school effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Research, Special Issue: Development in School Effectiveness Research, 13(7).

Scheerens, J., Glas, C. A., Thomas, S. M., & Thomas, S. (2003). Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring: A systemic approach, Vol. 13. London: Taylor & Francis.

Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., Steen, R., & Luyten-de Thouars, Y. (2007). Review and meta-analyses of school and teaching effectiveness. Enschede: University of Twente, Department of Educational Organisation and Management.

Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., Van den Bergh, S. M., & Glas, C. A. W. (2015). Exploration of direct and indirect associations of system level policy amenable variables and reading literacy performance. Accepted for publication in Educational Research and Evaluation.

Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., & van Ravens, J. (2011). Perspectives on educational quality. Illustrative outcomes on primary and secondary education in the Netherlands. Research Briefs. Dordrecht - Heidelberg - London - New York: Springer.

Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement - University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Thomas, S. M., Peng, W. J., & Gray, J. (2010). Modeling patterns of improvement over time: Value added trends in English secondary schools. Oxford Review of Education, 33, 261-295.

Tolofari, S. (2005). New public management and education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), 75-89. http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/files/tolofari.pdf

Van Bruggen, J. C. (2010). Inspectorates of Education in Europe: Some comparative remarks about their tasks and work. Standing International Conference of Inspectorates of Education in Europe (SICI).

Vermeer, N., & Van der Steeg, M. (2011). Onderwijsprestaties Nederland in Internationaal Perspectief. CPB Achtergronddocument bij CPB Policy Brief 05, 2011. Den Haag: CPB.

Visscher, A., & Ehren, M. (2011). De eenvoud en complexiteit van opbrengstgericht werken (analyse in opdracht van de Kenniskamer van het Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap). http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-enpublicaties/rapporten/2011/07/13/de-eenvoud-encomplexiteit-van-opbrengstgerichtwerken/visscher-ehren-eenvoud-encomplexiteit-van-opbrengstgericht-werken-def-1-7-11.pdf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2015-012-sche

Copyright (©) 2015 Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS Journal) – Editorial format and Graphical layout: copyright (©) LED Edizioni Universitarie


Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS)
Registered by Tribunale di Milano (19/05/2010 n. 278)
Online ISSN 2037-7924 - Print ISSN 2037-7932

Research Laboratory on Didactics and Evaluation - Department of Education - "Roma Tre" University

Executive Editor: Gaetano Domenici - Associate Executive Editor & Managing  Editor: Valeria Biasci
Editorial Board: Eleftheria Argyropoulou - Massimo Baldacci - Joao Barroso - Richard Bates - Christofer Bezzina - Paolo Bonaiuto - Lucia Boncori - Pietro Boscolo - Sara Bubb  - Carlo Felice Casula - Jean-Émile Charlier - Lucia Chiappetta Cajola - Carmela Covato - Jean-Louis Derouet - Peter Early - Franco Frabboni - Constance Katz - James Levin - Pietro Lucisano  - Roberto Maragliano - Romuald Normand - Michael Osborne - Donatella Palomba - Michele Pellerey - Clotilde Pontecorvo - Vitaly V. Rubtzov - Jaap Scheerens - Noah W. Sobe - Francesco Susi - Giuseppe Spadafora - Pat Thomson
Editorial Staff: Fabio Alivernini - Guido Benvenuto - Anna Maria Ciraci - Massimiliano Fiorucci - Luca Mallia - Massimo Margottini - Giovanni Moretti - Carla Roverselli 
Editorial Secretary:
Nazarena Patrizi 

Referee List

© 2001 LED Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto