Hi Dear Md:

In case the school uses standardized tests to measure students learning outcomes, I think the results of these tests could be a good indicator of ensuring quality teaching learning environment. 

Surly, the quality of  teaching learning environment should have positive relationship with students achievement.

Dear Mahmoud

Thank you your response. Yes, Standardize test result could be an indicator for quality teaching learning. But unfortunately this is the public exams are often questioned in developing countries. I was thinking if classroom monitoring and feedback should have any contribution on quality.

Dear Md

I have been working on Teaching Effectiveness in higher education, and the most common used method is student evaluation of teaching (SET). It is hard to apply such  methods in schools specially elementary schools. But, may be these methods could be good: 1- Administrative Evaluation (Principal and his/her assistants), 2- Peer Evaluation, 3- Tapping (Vedio), 3- Self Assessment, 4- Parents evaluation

This is a very interesting question and an issue which is currently the focus of debate in the English education system. The English “Office For Standards in Education” (OSTED) is the government body which inspects all state schools and reports on the quality of education provided in schools.

There is a significant body of evidence regarding the impact (both positive and often negative) of the process of inspection which is carried out according to a given framework. Sadly the political situation has led to constant changes in the way inspections are carried out and the particular focus of inspections.

A number of commentators have suggested that the inspection process has acted to “force” teachers to teach in a particular way although the evidence presented for this is rather weak but it is (in my experience) an issue in some schools. As each school is “graded” by inspectors and these grades decide the fate of a school and its staff there is a highly pressurised environment where innovation is stifled and some have even described the inspection process as “a reign of terror”. Certainly the issue of “when OFSTED comes” is central to the mindset of teachers and school leaders on a daily basis. This rather negative approach has been made worse by the introduction of “short notice” inspections where inspectors can turn up in schools almost without warning. Quite naturally this kind of approach to inspection can tend to have a negative impact on morale, willingness to innovate, classroom practice and the way schools are run.

So in response we might say that inspection can be either positive or negative depending on the underpinning philosophy and aims of the inspection system and the beliefs of those who manage and carry out inspections. This might be equated to Douglas McGregor's XY Theory.

X style -  “authoritarian”. Here the assumption underpinning process and purpose is that schools and teachers will, if not policed, do a poor job. The assumption is that the inspection process is a mechanism for ensuring that schools and teachers do not have the opportunity to provide a poor education and that many, if not inspected, will do so. The role of inspection is seen to be almost punitive, judgements are made using “standard frameworks” and the outcome is a grade rather than a sound qualitative judgement and suggested strategies for improvement.  

Y style – “participative”. Here the assumption is that schools and teachers do wish to do a good job, are engaged in seeking to become better and are internally motivated. Here the role of inspection is to support the school and the teacher with the role of inspection and the inspector as an expert evaluator able, through dialogue with the teacher and school, to help make improvements. This is a “partnership” in a common purpose and requires a far more experienced and high quality inspection team with adequate resources to support as well as inspect.

So, to sum up, inspection “can” improve teaching if carried out in a particular way but can have very negative influences if carried out in a punitive and negative way.

I hope this is helpful.

Dear Mr Adrian

Thank you very much for such insightful explanation of this matter. In fact was arguing in almost same line with one of my colleagues at the IoE, University of London. I am very much agreed with the picture that you have drawn in your writing here about the OFSTED activity in English school inspection. I also liked your concept of comparing the underpinning philosophy of inspection with McGragor's theory. However, in my context (Bangladesh- a developing south Asian country) with high density of population) there are some more interesting points I can share. 

As you mentioned the OFSTED inspection often argued as limiting school autonomy, in Bangladesh there are different scenario for primary and secondary level. In primary level there is a sector wide system that has almost 3000 inspectors to inspect around 80000 primary schools (Govt). But very few of those inspectors have either teaching background or pedagogical knowledge. Those inspectors are either at similar rank of the head teacher or below rank. Although there is no supervisory role but still how much the school could be benefited by their inspection is a question for me. On the other hand in secondary level there are very few inspector across the country to inspect secondary schools how are employed under some education project. The government secondary School head teachers are more powerful from the rank and socio-economic status point of view. The hardly have professional experience or academic knowledge. 

In summary, although there is less or no supervisory role of the inspectors in Bangladesh still it is difficult to comment about the quality of schools from the inspection reports. 

The inspection of overseas schools takes account where possible of compliance

with any local requirements and it judges the extent to which the schools comply with the

British Government’s Standards for British Schools Overseas. 

1. The quality of education provided by the school (Curriculum, Teaching and

Assessment).

2. The spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils.

3. The welfare, health and safety of the pupils.

4. The suitability of the proprietor and staff.

5. The premises and accommodation.

6. The provision of information for parents, carers and others.

7. The school’s procedures for handling complaints.

8. The quality of provision for boarding.

9. Leadership and management of the school.

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=48&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEIQFjAHOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bst.ac.jp%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2FISI__British_School_in_Tokyo_final_report_10_01_2012.pdf&ei=UtsTVajTCYOfuQTb-IDQBA&usg=AFQjCNFSJg7xZewI-D8_qZ71buZHoIRVQQ

Greetings

My article "The formalistic educational paradigm in Papua New Guinea" (see my profile) might provide a lead for situations where inspectors can play a constructive role in inspecting classroom teachers for promotion in formalistic systems. 

Based on the new approaches to teaching-learning, such as constructivist approach, it seems to me that the effectiveness of "School inspections" as a way to ensure quality teaching-learning  is becoming questionable. The reason is that in the constuctivisit approach the responsibility of the learning quality is given to the students. So, the T-L environment is arranged in   such a way that self-assessment  is carried out  by the students themselves. 

This starts to raise questions about whether constructivist approaches are actually appropriate in many cultures: an issue the subject of considerable debate in comparative education (search Michael Crossley, Richard Tabulawa, Michele Schweisfurth, Angeline Barrett and myself (amongst others)  for a range of views).

Greetings from Finland.   Here we have a very different view of ensuring quality and maintaining standards, as I am sure you have read.  As Gerard Guthrie mentions in his reply, cultural context is very important. Thus the kind of cultural imperialism described in other answers, should not be allowed to be a factor.   What I am trying to say (and I am British by the way)  is that what is judged to be important for a school in the UK does not hold true across cultures.   In the same way I am not claiming what works in Finland would work somewhere else, but it works for us, given Finnish culture, history, politics and society.    In Finland we have no central inspection system at all, nor do we have standardized exams, yet our students seem to do very well and our teachers are by and large very professional in conduct and practice.  They should be of course as they require a masters degree in pedagogy to be able to teach in the school system and they are considered as professionals in education.  

To return to the actual question "How do school inspections ensure quality teaching learning environment?"   The answer in Finland is that they don't.   That is the job of teachers, administrators, parents, students and municiplity to do as a collaborative process.

I found that in most of the cases, the members of the inspection committee only consider administrative or physical resources/issues. Although, the administrative environment can uplift the quality of teaching and learning but, an educational institution is recognized and popular for his quality of teaching and learning that he provides to his students. I think, at the time of inspection, the inspection team members must decide in advance the important criterion. In my view, the following important points should be consider at the time of inspection of the school:

1. Physical as well as human resources of the school.

2. The curriculum implemented by the school.

3. Teachers' qualification and experiences.

4. Teachers' expertise in their respective subjects and training.

5. Use of ICT in school subjects.

6. Creative learning environment.

7. Interactive, collaborative and supportive classroom activities.

8. Teaching methods.

Dr. Noushad Husain · Maulana Azad National Urdu University

I found that in most of the cases, the members of the inspection committee only consider administrative or physical resources/issues. Although, the administrative environment can uplift the quality of teaching and learning but, an educational institution is recognized and popular for his quality of teaching and learning that he provides to his students. I think, at the time of inspection, the inspection team members must decide in advance the important criterion. In my view, the following important points should be consider at the time of inspection of the school:

1. Physical as well as human resources of the school.

2. The curriculum implemented by the school.

3. Teachers' qualification and experiences.

4. Teachers' expertise in their respective subjects and training.

5. Use of ICT in school subjects.

6. Creative learning environment.

7. Interactive, collaborative and supportive classroom activities.

8. Teaching methods.

I am working on an investigation about the impact of the Inspection on the improvement of schools. If you know an interesting report, it would be very helpful.

It appears that most often, inspectors will only wake up from their slumber when there is an issue eg when a school has been vandalized by students. I would rather feel better if inspection was done on regular basis a nd not just when when an issue arises.