EDUCATION
TRAINING
YOUTH
Evaluating quality
in school education
_______________________
A European pilot project
Final report
Prepared by:
John Mac Beath
Denis Meuret
Michael Schratz
Lars Bo Jakobsen, co-ordinator DG XXII A1
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION JUNE 1999
&217(176
29(59,(:
&21&/86,216
&+$37(5 35(6(17$7,21 2) 7+( 3,/27 352-(&7 ²
1. BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT .......................................................................................................... 1—1
2. PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT................................................................................................................... 1—1
3. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................ 1—2
7KH $GYLVRU\ *URXS²
7KH 6WHHULQJ *URXS²
4. PRESENTATION OF THE SCHOOLS ........................................................................................................ 1—4
5. THE METHODOLOGY AND THE TOOLS OF THE PILOT PROJECT .............................................................. 1—6
7KH VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ SURILOH ²
7KH SUDFWLFDO JXLGH WR VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ ²
*XLGHOLQHV WR VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ ²
7KH FULWLFDO IULHQG ²
1HWZRUNLQJ QDWLRQDOO\ DQG LQWHUQDWLRQDOO\ ²
&+$37(5 +2: 7+( 6&+22/6 ',' ,7 ²
1. PREPARING THE GROUND .................................................................................................................. 2—11
2. USING THE SELF-EVALUATION PROFILE ............................................................................................. 2—11
3. DEFINING AREAS FOR ACTION ........................................................................................................... 2—12
4. EVALUATING - NEXT STEPS .............................................................................................................. 2—14
4XHVWLRQQDLUHV DQG VXUYH\V ²
6XUYH\V ²
,QWHUYLHZV²
)RFXV JURXSV²
3HHU REVHUYDWLRQ ²
3XSLO REsHUYDWLRQ²
6KDGRZLQJ²
3KRWR YLGHR DQG SLFWXUH HYDOXDWLRQ ²
7KH IRUFH ILeOG ²
5ROH SOD\ ²
5. EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT..................................................................................................... 2—20
&+$37(5 (9$/8$7,21 2) 7+( :25. 2) 6&+22/6 ²
1. THE SELF-EVALUATION PROFILE AS A DOOR OPENER ....................................................................... 3—23
,QYROYHPHQW RI SHRSOH ²
4XDOLW\ RI GLVFXVVLRQV ²
$GHTXDF\ RI GDWD ²
7KH WLPH IDFWRU ²
$FFXUDF\ RI GLDJQRVLV ²
&KRLFH of DUHD ²
,PSURYLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ VWDNHKROGHUV ²
2. THE CRITICAL FRIEND AS AN EXTERNAL RESOURCE .......................................................................... 3—29
:KR ZHUH WKH FULWLFDO IULHQGV LQ WKH SURMHFW "²
3. OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT ............................................................................................................. 3—33
6WDNHKROGHU VDWLVIDFWLRQ ²
7KH LPSDFW RI WKH SURMHFW RQ WKH VFKRROV²
a) Enhancing self-knowledge ............................................................................................................................ 3—35
b) Recognition of achievement..........................................................................................................................3—36
c) Raising self-confidence .................................................................................................................................3—36
d) Developing a sense of accountability............................................................................................................3—36
e) Widening perspectives ..................................................................................................................................3—37
f) Understanding of self-evaluation ...................................................................................................................3—38
2
g) Strengthening the culture ..............................................................................................................................3—38
h) Informing development, and action, planning...............................................................................................3—39
i) Adding value - the European dimension ........................................................................................................3—40
j) Improving schools..........................................................................................................................................3—42
4. CHANGING ATTITUDES TOWARDS SELF-EVALUATION ........................................................................ 3—44
&+$37(5 021,725,1* $7 1$7,21$/ /(9(/ ²
1. TWO EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE IN MONITORING ........................................................................ 4—46
7KH 1RUZHJLDQ H[SHULHQFH²
7KH 3RUWXJXHVH H[SHULHQFH ²
2. GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE WORK OF NATIONAL COMMITTEES ............................................... 4—47
&RPSRVLWLRQ RI 1DWLRQDO &RPPLWWHHV ²
$FWLRQV E\ 1DWLRQDO &RPPLWWHHV ²
a. Monitoring and dissemination...................................................................................................................... 4—48
b. Methodological support ...............................................................................................................................4—49
c. Exchange of information and experiences....................................................................................................4—49
d. International Networking...............................................................................................................................4—50
&+$37(5 &21',7,216 2) 68&&(66 ²
1. INTERNAL FACTORS .......................................................................................................................... 5—51
6XESURMHFW 63 FRPSDUHG WR VXESURMHFW 63 ²
&RQGLWLRQV IRU VXFFHVV RI WKH SURMHFW ²
a. Participation by the stakeholders ................................................................................................................... 5—53
b. Satisfaction of the stakeholders .....................................................................................................................5—55
c. Teacher satisfaction .......................................................................................................................................5—56
d. School effectiveness and ability to improve ..................................................................................................5—57
e. Pupil’s commitment to learning.....................................................................................................................5—58
f. General lessons ..............................................................................................................................................5—59
2. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS .................................................................................................................... 5—60
2UJDQLVDWLRQDO FRQWH[W²
a. School autonomy.......................................................................................................................................... 5—60
b. The trend to enhance self-evaluation of the schools.....................................................................................5—62
c. Internal and external evaluation ...................................................................................................................5—64
&XOWXUH DQG SROLWLFV²
/DQJXDJH ²
'LUHFWLRQ DQG VXSSRUW ²
7LPH DQG WLPLQJ ²
5HVRXUFHV ²
6L]H DQG ORFDWLRQ²
([SHULHQFH DQG H[SHUWLVH ²
3. INVOLVING THE STAKEHOLDERS ....................................................................................................... 5—70
(IIHFWV RI VWDNHKROGHU LQYROYHPHQW²
a) Management .................................................................................................................................................. 5—71
b) Teachers ........................................................................................................................................................5—71
c) Parents...........................................................................................................................................................5—72
d) Pupils ............................................................................................................................................................5—72
3URPRWLQJ GLDORJXH ²
&+$37(5 :+$7 ,6 ,1 ,7 )25 6&+22/6 ²
1. CREATING A CULTURE FOR SELF-EVALUATION .................................................................................. 6—75
2. GENERATING KNOWLEDGE FOR CHANGE .......................................................................................... 6—76
3. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES ...................................................................................................................... 6—77
3KRWR (YDOXDWLRQ²
&RPELQDWLRQ RI HYDOXDWLRQ PHWKRGV²
3
$11(; 5(3257 21 7+( ),1$/ &21)(5(1&( ,1 $8675,$
DECLARATION FROM CONFERENCE IN VIENNA ON 20/21 NOVEMBER 1998..................................................... 89
PROGRAMME FOR THE CONFERENCE IN VIENNA ON 20/21 NOVEMBER 1998 ................................................... 92
$11(; (;$03/( 2) ,167580(176 68**(67(' ,1 7+( 35$&7,&$/ *8,'( 72 6(/)
(9$/8$7,21
$11(; '(),1,7,216
$11(; 67$7,67,&$/ $11(; )25 &21',7,216 $1' 68&&(66 6(( &+$37(5
$11(; 32/,&4.25) level of
participation from the stakeholders (pupils, parents, teaching staff, not teaching staff) with
those of the schools which declare a low ( < 2.75) level of participation.
As shown in the table, it is regarding the participation of parents that the two groups mostly
differ, but for all groups the difference in participation is rather high.
On the following variables, the two groups differ in a significant manner. The schools which
declare a high level of participation, declare also :
a) a steering group more active, involving not only staff, successful in motivating people;
b) a stronger impact of the critical friend on the pupils and on the parents;
c) regarding the SEP, that enough people were involved, that adequate data were available,
that the process resulted in a careful choice of area for further examination, that the
process helped to improve relationships among stakeholders. They report also, but with a
weaker gap, that the discussion were more thorough (0.9), that there was enough time
(0.9).
The two groups do not differ on the following variables :
a) Their appreciation of the role of the critical friend, regarding his/her openness, ability to
communicate ideas, help to challenge the practice of the school.
b) Four among eight dimensions of the possible impact of the evaluation on the school : to
strengthen the commitment of staff, other positive changes for the staff, changes for the
pupils others than commitment to learning, enhancement of the school ability to
improve.
c) The importance of networking with schools in other countries
d) The estimated satisfaction of students, teachers and parents.
e) Nine among eleven dimensions of the attitude of the school to self evaluation.
Annex 4 - 104
6DWLVIDFWLRQ IURP WKH VWDNHKROGHUV
This analysis compare the answers of the 28 schools which declared a high level of
satisfaction (not inferior to 1.8 , on a scale from –3 to +3), with what happened through the
Project with those of the 23 schools which declared a lower level (<0.8) of satisfaction.
As shown in the table, for all groups of stakeholders, the gap in satisfaction is higher than 1
point. The groups of the stakeholders of whom the satisfaction mostly differ among the two
groups are non teaching staff (2.4 points), the pupils (1.8), and the critical friend (1.4 point).
However, the teachers differ less than the others. Therefore, we will devote a special analysis
to them (see hereunder).
On the following variables, the two groups differ in a significant manner; the schools where
the satisfaction is higher report also :
a) that the project steering group involved more stakeholders.
b) a larger impact of the Critical friend on the staff (0.9 only).
c) a higher participation of parents (0.8 only) and of non teaching staff in the project.
d) a more careful choice of the area through the SEP (0.9 only).
e) more positive changes for the pupils in domains else than commitment to learning.
The two groups do not differ on the following variables :
f) their openness, ability to listen and to communicate ideas of the critical friend, and the
fact that he/she gave or not helpful advice.
g) their evaluation of the support through the documents from the Commission, the
networking with foreign schools, the home page and the internet site.
h) the number of people involved in the SEP process and the reliability of the diagnosis.
i) six among eleven dimensions of the attitude of the school to self evaluation.
7HDFKHU VDWLVIDFWLRQ
This analysis compares the answers of the schools which declared a rather high level of
satisfaction from the teachers and those of the schools which declared a lower level of
satisfaction.
More precisely, it contrasts the answers of 54 schools of which the answer to question Q13.2
was 2 (on a –3, +3 scale) – none school report a 3 - with the answers of the 48 schools of
which the answer to the same question was inferior to 2 ( 1 school reported –2 ; 3 reported -1;
the others reported 1). As it may be seen from these data, it was not possible to form more
contrasted groups of schools on that point.
On two variables, the gap is of 0.8 : schools which declare a stronger satisfaction of the
teachers declare also a stronger impact of the project on Pupil’s commitment to learning and
on the effectiveness of the school.
Annex 4 - 105
For two variables, the difference reaches 0.7 point. Both of them are on the impact of the
project. The schools where the teachers are most satisfied are the ones which declare a
stronger impact of the Project on “other positive change for the staff (0.7) and on the school
ability to improve (0.7).
For almost all the remaining variables, the difference between the two groups is about 0.2 or
0.3 point, and appears as a result of chance.
6FKRRO HIIHFWLYHQHVV DQG DELOLW\ WR LPSURYH
This analysis compare the answers of the schools which declared that the project had strong
consequences on the school effectiveness and ability to improve, and of the schools which
declared weak consequences in this respect.
More precisely, it contrasts the answers of 40 schools of which the answer to question Q12
(7+8) was not inferior to 4.5 , with the answers of 25 schools of which the answer to the same
question was not superior to 2.5.
As it can be seen from the table, the two groups are very contrasted, with gaps of 2.3 for
ability to improve, and gap of 3.4 for enhancement of effectiveness. On a 10 points scale,
these gaps would respectively be of 3.8 and 5.7.
On the following variables, the two groups differ in a significant manner. The schools which
declare a stronger effect on improvement and effectiveness declare also :
a) a more active steering group (0.8 only), successful in motivating people (0.9 also)
b) a stronger impact of the Critical friend on the pupils
c) a higher appreciation of the support from the Newsletter EVA
d) a stronger participation of the teachers, of the parents, and also of the pupils (but with a
gap of only 0.8 in the case of pupils)
e) more people involved in filling the SEP, and, - with a smaller gap : 0.8- : adequate data
more available, enough time for the process and a more careful choice of area from the
SEP process
f) that evaluation was more focused on a little number of area (4 instead of 5.8)
g) stronger effects also on pupil’s commitment to learning, improvement of the knowledge
of the school, and especially, with gaps no lower than 1.7, on : the impact of the Project
on the school climate, the commitment of staff to the benefit of all, and other positive
changes for them
h) a better attitude to self-evaluation, on 5 among the 11 dimensions which were
investigated : school evaluation improves teaching, involves everyone, and- with gaps of
only 0.8 or 0.9- : school evaluation tells us a lot, improves management, is liked by staff.
Annex 4 - 106
The two groups do not differ on the following variables :
i) the time that the coordinator was able to devote to the project
j) the evaluation of the role of the critical friend (the only dimension where the gap is
superior to 0.2 is that the critical friend helped more to challenge the practice in schools
with a higher impact on effectiveness and improvement)
k) the evaluation of the support from the European level, regarding the Document from the
Commission and the networking with foreign schools
l) satisfaction from the parents and from the governing boards.
3XSLO¶V FRPPLWPHQW WR OHDUQLQJ
This analysis compares the answers of the schools which declared that the project enhanced
the commitment of the pupils to learning, to those which declared no or weak effect in this
respect.
More precisely, it contrasts the answers of 26 schools of which the answer to question Q12.2
was not inferior to 4, on a six points scale , with the answers of the 33 schools of which the
answer to the same question was 1 .
On the following variables, the two groups differ in a significant manner :
a) a stronger impact of the Critical friend on pupils and parents
b) a better appreciation of the newsletter EVA
c) a stronger participation of the pupils in the project, and also of the parents (but, in the
case of the parents, with a gap of only 0.9)
d) a stronger impact of the project also on the climate, on the commitment of staff, on other
positive changes for the pupils and the staff, on the effectiveness of the school, and also
(but in this case with a gap of only 0.9) on the school ability to improve
e) a stronger satisfaction of the pupils.
They do not differ on :
a) the time that the coordinator had to devote to the project
b) Most of the appreciations on the critical friend
c) The importance of the European documents, the networking between schools, the
homepage.
d) The number of people involved in the SEP procedure, the adequacy of the data and the
reliability of the diagnosis.
e) The satisfaction of the governing board and of the critical friend.
Annex 4 - 107
$QQH[ 3ROLF\ LPSDFW DQG GLVVHPLQDWLRQ PHDVXUHV
Pilot project on quality evaluation in school education
Overview
Country Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
Austria • Important input for • 20 November 1998 in
national initiative “quality Austria with German
in Schools”, linked to speaking countries.
curriculum 99.
• Enlarged version of • 11-13 March 1999 in
Practical Guide to self-
evaluation will be put on
the internet “Offene
Methoden”.
Annex 5 - 108
Country Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
Finland Two conferences will be Published and distributed to
organised during 1999. schools. Also available on
School representatives from the internet.
Estonia and Finland will
take part.
Germany • 20 November 1998 in • Book on the pilot project • Regional meetings with other
Austria with German –including the national German speaking countries are
speaking countries. report and an empirical scheduled for spring 2000
study on the effect of the (Luxembourg) and autumn 2000
• 11-13 March 1999 in project on German (Germany).
Liechtenstein with schools. Copies to the 16 • Article in Schulverwaltung Mo,
German speaking Ministries of Education. 6/1999.
countries, including
network for Comenius.
Greece • Inspired new law in the A final conference is • Booklet based on the • Internet site on the pilot project
area envisaged. final report will be established.
• An official guideline about published. • An autonomous experimental project
self-evaluation will be • Dissemination of the that interacted with the pilot project
prepared Vienna declaration in all was organised in a total of 13
Greek schools. primary and secondary schools based
on a set of guidelines and quality
indicators.
Iceland • Helped in the Dissemination on internet • Schools taking part gave a seminar
implementation of existing on the pilot project during a national
law on school self- conference on quality evaluation.
evaluation • Study on how schools are progressing
• Press meeting regarding with self-evaluation is launched
the outcome of the project • A course on the methodology of the
• Money set-aside for schools project was offered, which was
working on European level attended by nearly half of upper-
on quality issues. secondary schools in the country.
Ireland Project experience has National report will be National Report will be included in
contributed to policy published and disseminated project website.
development planning. to all second-level schools.
Annex 5 - 109
Annex 5 - 110
Country Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
Italy Gave input for the Dissemination at national Schools involved in the project are
implementation of the school level is currently being exploring the possibility of creating a
autonomy. evaluated. permanent “consortium”.
Liechtenstein • 20 November 1998 in Regional meetings with other German
Austria with German speaking countries are scheduled for
speaking countries. spring 2000 (Luxembourg) and autumn
2000 (Germany).
• 11-13 March 1999 in
Liechtenstein with
German speaking
countries, including
network for Comenius.
Luxembourg • 20 November 1998 in Regional meetings with other German
Austria with German speaking countries are scheduled for
speaking countries. spring 2000 (Luxembourg) and autumn
• A conference on the 2000 (Germany).
methodologies of the
pilot project is
envisaged.
• 11-13 March 1999 in
Liechtenstein with
German speaking
countries, including
network for Comenius.
The Inspired new law in the area Presentation of European Publication of a manual on quality
results on a national assessment instruments for secondary
Netherlands conference on quality policy schools including instruments from the
for secondary schools. pilot project.
Annex 5 - 111
Country Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
Norway Important input for a white National and regional Dissemination on internet • A researchers is looking into all
paper on quality evaluation conferences. Invitation to documents produced, interview
school in Denmark and participants etc. looking at impacts.
Sweden. This study will be presented at a
dissemination conference and
published in a national report.
• National support material will be
provided in the form of tools and
methods for school self-evaluation.
Portugal • Training in the use of self- Final conference in Dissemination on internet
evaluation September 1998. The
• Progressively more schools conference was at the same
are drawn into the project time launching conference
using the same for the 18 schools. Next
methodology. It is expected conference planned for
that 100 schools will take September 1999.
part after a launching
conference in September
1999.
Spain The national report has been Two of the participating schools are
published in 2000 copies for continuing training in the “Modelo
distribution to relevant europeo de gestion de calidad”.
institutions.
Sweden • Has improved and build Representatives from pilot Report on the internet. The Articles in publications
bridges to associations schools took part in national report is partly used
• Has been linked to other dissemination conferences. in the teacher training at one
projects within the University.
National Agency for
Education dealing with
quality and evaluation
issues.
United • Dissemination to 150
local authorities
Kingdom • Made available on the
Annex 5 - 112
Country Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
internet
Annex 5 - 113
Association Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
ETUCE- Executive Board proposed • Round table organised • Several articles published regarding
conclusions to be drawn by the in Luxembourg in 1998 the project
European General Assembly. in order to raise • Special task force organised several
Trade Union awareness and meetings with member organisations.
Committee for conclude on the project • Comparative study on the
• Theme on the General development in self-evaluation and
Education Assembly planned for external evaluation in the 18
May 1999 countries taking part in the pilot
project.
EPA- Will be distributed to Regular information in EPA information.
member associations.
European EVA 1-3 has been distributed to member
Parents’ associations.
Association
OBESSU- • Seminar on School • “The Q-files”. Publication based on
Student Involvement in the 1997 seminar on school student
Organising the Evaluation of involvement in evaluation of quality.
Bureau of Quality in Secondary • “The ESSIC news”. Newsletter
European Education in June 1997, distributed to all OBESSU member
Amsterdam, the and observer organisations, as well as
School Student Netherlands. other interested organisations.
Unions Representatives from
school student • “Students Know Best”. Poster and
organisations met to brochure for students on how to
discuss how school evaluate their school.
students can evaluate
their school and how
they can co-operate with
OBESSU- other actors in school to
Organising evaluate and improve
Bureau of quality.
• Conference on co-
European operation and
School Student
Annex 5 - 114
Association Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
Unions partnership in
improving quality, “Co-
operation as the key to
quality”. March 1998,
Pisa, Italy. Conference
organised in partnership
with ESHA and EPA
and with ETUCE.
Representatives of
national organisations
and unions of school
students, school heads,
parents and teachers
met during this
conference to discuss
how to develop co-
operation and
involvement of all
partners when
evaluating quality and
how co-operation can
improve quality of
education.
Annex 5 - 115
Association Policy Impact Conferences National report Other initiatives
OBESSU- • Planned follow-up
conference on co-
Organising operation and
Bureau of partnership in
European improving quality.
“School immunity or
School Student school community”
Unions October 1999, Rome,
Italy. Conference
planned in co-operation
with ESHA and EPA.
ESHA- Conference in Brussels in
November 1998 for Head
European teachers in European
Secondary countries.
Heads
Association
Annex 5 - 116
$QQH[ /LVW RI PHPEHUV RI WKH $GYLVRU\ *URXS
BELGIUM (FR)
Madame Fanny CONSTANT
Ministère de la Communauté française de Belgique
Administration générale de l’enseignement et de la
recherche scientifique
Service général des affaires générales, de la
recherche en éducation et du pilotage interréseaux
Place Surlet de Chokier 15-17
B-1000 Bruxelles
Tél. +32/2/221.88.19
Fax. +32/2/221.88.86
E-mail: fanny.constant@skynet.be
BELGIUM (NL)
Mr Peter MICHIELSENS
Inspecteur général
Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap
Departement Onderwijs
Hendrik Consciencegebouw 5C
Emile Jacqmainlaan 165, 2 BC 3
B-1210 Brussel
Tél. +32/2/553.88.07
Fax. +32/2/553.88.05
E-mail: peter.michielsens@ond.vlaanderen.be
DENMARK
Mr Henrik AAES
General Inspector of Education
Undervisnings ministeriet
Department of secondary education
Frederiksholms Kanal 25
DK-1220 Copenhagen K
Tél.+45/33.92.56.54
Fax. +45/33.92.56.08
E-mail: henrik.aaes@uvm.dk
Dr Poul SKOV
Director of research
Danish National Institute
for Educational Research
Hermodsgade 28
DK-2200 Copenhagen N
Tél. +45/35.81.01.40
Fax. +45/35.81.45.51
E-mail:
Annex 6 - 117
GERMANY
Herr Dr. Hans HAENISCH
Leiter des Referats
Schul- und Unterrichtsforschung
Landesinstitut für Schule und Weiterbildung
Paradieser Weg 64
D-59494 Soest
Tel. + 49/2921/68.32.53
Fax. +49/2921/68.32.28
E-mail:
Herrn Dr. Otmar SCHIEßL
Staatsinstitut für Schulpädagogik
und Bildungforschung
Arabellastraße 1
D-81925 München
Tel. +49/89/92.14.21.06
Fax. +49/89/92.14.35.72
E-mail:
GREECE
Dr. Joseph SOLOMON
Président du département pour l'évaluation
Institut Pédagogique
Messogion 396
GR-153 41 Agia Paraskevi - ATHENES
Tél. +30/1/601.63.86/77
Fax. +30/1/601.63.86 or 601.63.77
Fax. +30/1/601.60.02
E-mail: isol@pi-schools.gr
SPAIN
Mr José Luis GARCIA GARRIDO
Director
Instituto Nacional de Calidad y Evaluacion
San Fernando del Jarama 14
E-28002 Madrid
Tel. +34/91/562.54.00
Fax. +34/91/561.89.21
E-mail: ggarido@ince.mec.es
Annex 6 - 118
FRANCE
M. Gérard BONNET
Direction de la programmation et du développement
Ministère de l'éducation nationale,
de l'enseignement supérieur
et de la recherche
3-5 boulevard Pasteur
F-75015 Paris
Tél. +33/1/55.55.77.05
Fax. +33/1/55.55.77.69
E-mail: Gerard.Bonnet@ac.men.fr
IRELAND
Mr Gearoíd Ó CONLUAIN
Assistant Chief Director
Irish Department of Education
Marlborough Street
IR-Dublin 1
Tél. + 353/1/878.77.35
Tél. + 353/1/873.47.00 ext 3202
Fax. + 353/1/874.70.13
E-mail:
ITALY
Mme Chiara CASTELLETTI CROCE
Inspecteur
Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione
Direzione Generale per gli Scambi Culturali
Viale Trastevere 76A
I-00153 Roma
Tél. +39/06/58.49. 33.78
Fax. +39/06/58.49.22.42
E-mail:
LUXEMBOURG
M. Dominique PORTANTE
Directeur du service de coordination de la
recherche et de l'innovation pédagogiques
Ministère de l'éducation nationale
et de la formation professionnelle
29 rue Aldringen
L-2926 Luxembourg
Tél. +352/478.51.87
Fax.+ 352/478.51.37
E-mail: portante@men.lu
Annex 6 - 119
THE NETHERLANDS
Dr Paul van OIJEN
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
Division VO/A Room J 359
P.O. Box 25000
Europaweg 4
NL-2700LZ Zoetermeer
Tél. +31/79/323.37.17
Fax. +31/79/323.23.20
E-mail: P.M.M.van Oijen@minocw.nl
AUSTRIA
Dr. Herbert PELZELMAYER
Leiter der Abt. I/3 des Bundesministeriums
für Unterricht und kulturelle Angelegenheiten
Bildungsforschung, Planung, Kooperation
Minoritenplatz 5
A-1010 Wien
Tel. + 43/1/53120.4792
Fax. +43/1/53120.4780
E-mail: herbert.pelzelmayer@bmuk.gv.at
PORTUGAL
Mrs Maria Emília BREDERODE SANTOS
President
Instituto de Inovação Educacional
Trav. das Terras de Sant’Ana 15
P-1250 Lisboa
Tél. +351/1/389.51.61
Fax. +351/1/389.52.88
E-mail: maria.brederode@iie.min-edu.pt
FINLAND
Mrs Ritva JAKKU-SIHVONEN
National Board of Education
Hakaniemenk. 2
SF-00530 Helsinki
Tél. +358/9/77.47.77.00
Fax. +358/9/77.47.78.69
E-mail: Ritva.Jakku-Sihvonen@oph.fi
Annex 6 - 120
SWEDEN
Mr. Ulf P. LUNDGREN
Director
National Agency for Education
Kungsgatan 53
SV-10620 Stockholm
Tél. +46/8/723.32.74
Fax. +46/8/723.33.80
E-mail: ulf.p.lundgren@skolverket.se
UNITED KINGDOM
Mrs Dawn STONE
Pupil Performance Team
Department for Education and Employment
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street - Westminster
UK- London SW1P 3BT
Tél. +44/171/925.58 23
Fax. +44/171/925.60.02
E-mail:
HMCI Mr Harvey STALKER
HM Inspectors of Schools
The Scottish Office
Education & Industry Dept
Victoria Quay
UK-Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
Tel. +44/131/244.08.90
Fax. +44/131/244.06.53
E-mail: hms@riu.soied.gov.uk
ISLAND
Mr Arnór GUDMUNDSSON
Head of Section
Ministry of Culture and Education
Sövhólsgata 4
150 Reykjavik - ISLAND
Tel. +354/560.9500
Fax. +354/562.3068
E-mail: ARNOR.GUDMUNDSSON@MRN.STJR.IS
Annex 6 - 121
NORWAY
Mrs Annbjørg RIMESLÅTTEN
Advisor
Department of Upper Secondary Education
Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs
P.O. Box 8119 Dep.
Akersgaten 42
N-0032 Oslo
Tel. +47/22/24.75.62
Fax. +47/22/24.27.15
E-mail: agr@kuf.dep.no
NORWAY
Mrs Eva SCHØYEN
Advisor
Department of Primary and Lower Secondary Education
Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs
P.O. Box 8119 Dep.
Akersgaten 42
N-0032 Oslo
Tel. +47/22/24.75.81
Fax. +47/22/24.27.31
E-mail: evs@kuf.dep.telemax.no
LIECHTENSTEIN
Mr Hans Peter WALCH
Leiter Abteilung
Hoch- und Mittelschule
Bildungsprogramme
FL-9490 Vaduz
LIECHTENSTEIN
Tel.+41/75/236.67.58
Fax. +41/75/236.67.71
E-mail: walch@firstlink.li
Annex 6 - 122
$662&,$7,216 :25.,1* ,1 7+( ),(/' 2) ('8&$7,21
2%6(59(56
Miss Hanne JOHNSRUD
Secretary General
OBESSU - Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions
Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 21
NL-1012RC Amsterdam
Tel.+31/20/623.47.13
Fax. +31/20/625.58.14
E-mail: obessu@wxs.nl
Mrs Mary KILLEEN
President
E.P.A. -European Parents’ Association
rue du Champ de Mars 1A
B-1050 Bruxelles
Tel. +32/2/514.05.99
Fax. +32/2/514.47.67
E-mail: infos@epa.be
Mrs Eeva PENTTILÄ
President
ESHA - European Secondary Heads Association
Iso Roobertinkatu 9.C.27
FIN-00120 Helsinki
Tel. +358/9/310.82.610
Fax. +358/9/608.295
GSM +358/50/554.2664
E-mail: eeva.penttila@edu.hel.fi
Mr Alain MOUCHOUX
Secrétaire général
CSEE/ETUCE
Comité syndical européen de l’éducation
European trade union committee for education
155 bd E Jacqmain
B-1210 Bruxelles
Tel. +32/2/224.06.92
Fax. +32/2/224.06.94
E-mail: csee-etuce@infoboard.be
Mr Martin RØMER
DLF - International
Danish Teachers Union
Drève de Linkebeek 51
B-1640 Rhode-St-Genèse
Tel. +32/2/358.33.59
Fax. +32/2/358.37.84
E-mail: 101565.2043@Compuserve.Com
Annex 6 - 123
$QQH[ /LVW RI PHPEHUV RI WKH 6WHHULQJ JURXS
Professor Michael SCHRATZ
University of Innsbruck
Department of Education
Liebeneggstrasse 8
A-6020 Innsbruck
Tel.: +43- 512-507-4050
Fax: +43-512-507-2880
E-mail: Michael.Schratz@uibk.ac.at
Professor John MACBEATH
Quality in Education Centre
University of Strathclyde
UK-Glasgow G13 1PP
Tel: +44 1 41 950 3168
Private: +44 1 41 639 5836
Mobile: + 44 41 041 8597
Fax: +44 1 41 950 3178
E-mail: J.macbeath@strath.ac.uk
Professor Denis MEURET
IREDU - CNRS
Université de Bourgogne
9 avenue Alain Savary
B.P. 47870
F-21078 Dijon Cedex
Tel. +33 3 80.39.54.50
Fax. + 33 3 80.39.54.79
Private tel/fax: +33 1 42 17 04 70
E-mail:dmeuret@club-internet.fr
7KH (XURSHDQ &RPPLVVLRQ
Directorate-General XXII/A/1
Mr Anders J. HINGEL
Head of Unit
Mr Lars Bo JAKOBSEN
Coordinator
Tel. + 32 2 299.57.49
Fax. + 32 2 299.22.31
E-mail: lars.jakobsen@dg22.cec.be
Annex 7 - 124