THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTERNAL WHOLE-SCHOOL EVALUATION ON UNDERPERFORMING SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE MPUMALANGA PROVINCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25159/1727-7140/1635Keywords:
quality education, school evaluation, external whole-school evaluation, planning for teaching and learning, teaching strategies, assessment of learners, development initiatives for teachersAbstract
The study was conducted in the Mpumalanga province and focused on a sample of 18 externally evaluated underperforming secondary schools across all four districts of the province. The schools obtained an average pass rate of less than 30% in the 2011 Grade 12 examinations. The main objectives of the study were to analyse the purpose of whole-school evaluation (WSE) from a quality assurance perspective; to investigate the significance of a key component of WSE, namely assessing the quality of teaching, learning and educator development; to analyse the Grade 12 results of externally evaluated underperforming secondary schools pre- and post-evaluation; to analyse monitoring and evaluation reports for changes in teaching, learning and teacher development, as well as to identify factors impeding teaching, learning and teacher development in underperforming secondary schools. WSE is a system of evaluating the performance of schools as a whole. Corporate contribution to improve performance is measured, rather than simply the performance of individual staff members. Furthermore, WSE is one intervention to move schools that are in a critical situation along the path to becoming effective schools. Guidelines for quality assurance in education, especially at school level, are underpinned by the nine areas for evaluation (AFEs), namely basic functionality of the school (AFE1), leadership, management and communication (AFE2), governance and relationships (AFE3), quality of teaching and learning, and educator development (AFE4), curriculum provisioning and resources (AFE5), learner achievement (AFE6), school safety, security and discipline (AFE7), school infrastructure (AFE8), and parents and the community (AFE9). The mixed methods approach was used. This approach made it easy to reconcile findings through triangulation and complementing qualitative and quantitative data (both primary and secondary). The study relied on secondary data (external WSE reports and Grade 12 results), as well as primary data obtained from questionnaires administered to school management teams (SMTs) of the sampled underperforming secondary schools. The study revealed the great level of acceptance of the external WSE process by SMTs in Mpumalanga province’s underperforming secondary schools, as a means of quality assurance in order to achieve improvement. Furthermore, it revealed the extent to which improvement and development in the underperforming schools occurred as a result of the external WSE process. It was found that the results of seventeen of the 18 schools (94.4%) had improved. Furthermore, the study confi rmed that what was revealed in the external WSE as areas for development came as a revelation to SMTs. As a result, the manner in which teaching, learning and teacher development (AFE4) as a key component of WSE is viewed by teachers and SMTs, has been positively influenced.
References
Asmal, K. 2001. Government Gazette Vol. 433 No. 22512. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Barootchi, N. and M.H. Keshavarz. 2002. “Assessment of Achievement through Portfolios and Teacher-Made Tests.†Educational Research 44(3): 279–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880210135313
Creswell, J.W. and A.L. Garrett. 2008. “The ‘Movement’ of Mixed Methods Research and the Role of Educators.†South African Journal of Education 28(3): 321–333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n3a176
Denscombe, M. 2003. The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Research Projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Department of Basic Education 2011. Available at: http://www.education.gov.za/LinkClick.aspx? Fi leticket=%2F%2BBILaBJ7ak%3D&tabid=80&mid=585.
Griffiths, B. 1998. “Improving School Efficiency: Student and School Evaluation: Office of Review.†School Efficiency Seminar 1998.
Hammond, C. 2005. “The Wider Benefits of Adult Learning: An Illustration of the Advantages of Multi-Method Research’’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Theory and Practice 8(3): 239—255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500155037
Herselman, M. and Hay, D. 2002. Quality assurance in the Foundation Phase in the Eastern Cape province: A case study. South African Journal of Education: EASA Vol. 22(3) 239–245.
Hogan, R.L. 2010. “The Historical Development of Program Evaluation: Exploring Past and Present’’. Online Journal for Workforce Education and Development 2(4): 5 Available at: http://opensiuc. lib.siu.edu/ojwed/vol2/iss4/5/ (Accessed 4 July 2013.
Lennon, C. 1998. “Is evaluation of teachers a way of controlling the quality of education?†Available at: http://www.ei-ie.org (Accessed 22 July 2012).
Mbalati, T. 2010. “A Critique on the Implementation of Whole School Evaluation Policy in Limpopo Province.†Ph.D. thesis, University of Limpopo.
Mertens, D.M. 2009. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. California: Sage Publications.
Mertens, D.M. and A.T. Wilson. 2012. Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide. New York: Guilford Press.
Mgijima, N. 2000. The South African model for Whole-School Evaluation. Paper presented at National Conference on Whole-school Evaluation, 29–30 September, Caesar’s Conference Centre, Gauteng.
Ortiz, M. and C. Rubio. 2009. Educational Evaluation: 21st Century Issues and Challenges. New York: Nova Science.
Phurutse, M. C. 2005. Factors affecting teaching and learning in South African public schools. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Rebien, C.C. 1996. Evaluating Development Assistance in Theory and in Practice. Aldershot: Avebury.
Republic of South Africa. Department of Education. 2000a. Whole-school Evaluation: Guidelines and Criteria. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Republic of South Africa. Department of Education. 2000b. The South African Model for Whole- School Evaluation. Available at: http://education.p.w.v.gov.za?DoE sites African model for schools.html (Accessed 6 December 2011).
Republic of South Africa. Department of Education. 2001. National Policy on Whole-School Evaluation. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Republic of South Africa. National Planning Commission. 2011. National Development Plan. Available at: www.npconline.co.za/.../NPC%20National%20Development%20Plan%2... http:// www.npconline.co.za/medialib/downloads/home/NPC%20National%20Development%20 Plan%20Vision%202030%20-lo-res.pdf (Accessed 26 November 2013)
Sale, J.E.M., Lohfeld, L.H. and K. Brazil. 2002. “Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research.†Quality & Quantity 36(1): 43–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014301607592
Sou, G. 2008. “Historical Review of Program Evaluation for Educational Quality Assurance.†Available at: http://www.paper.edu.cn (Accessed 3 March 2013).
Steyn, G. 2002. “The changing Principalship in South African Schools.†Educare 31(1&2): 251–274.
Stufflebeam, D.L. and A.J. Shinkfield. 2007. Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Terre Blanche, M., Durrheim, K., and D. Painter. 2006. Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright will be vested in Unisa Press. However, as long as you do not use the article in ways which would directly conflict with the publisher’s business interests, you retain the right to use your own article (provided you acknowledge the published version of the article) as follows:
- to make further copies of all or part of the published article for your use in classroom teaching;
- to make copies of the final accepted version of the article for internal distribution within your institution, or to place it on your own or your institution’s website or repository, or on a site that does not charge for access to the article, but you must arrange not to make the final accepted version of the article available to the public until 18 months after the date of acceptance;
- to re-use all or part of this material in a compilation of your own works or in a textbook of which you are the author, or as the basis for a conference presentation.
