Toward a model of school inspections in a polycentric system

Many education systems are developing towards more lateral structures where schools collaborate in networks to improve and provide (inclusive) education. These structures call for bottom-up models of network evaluation and accountability instead of the current hierarchical arrangements where single schools are evaluated by a central agency. This paper builds on available research about network effectiveness to present evolving models of network evaluation. Network effectiveness can be defined as the achievement of positive network level outcomes that cannot be attained by individual organizational participants acting alone. Models of network evaluation need to take into account the relations between network members, the structure of the network, its processes and its internal mechanism to enforce norms in order to understand the achievement and outcomes of the network and how these may evolve over time. A range of suitable evaluation models are presented in this paper, as well as a tentative school inspection framework which is inspired by these models. The final section will present examples from Inspectorates of Education in Northern Ireland and Scotland who have developed newer inspection models to evaluate the effectiveness of a range of different networks.

Evaluating instruments for regulation of health care in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Reliable and valid judgments are necessary for regulatory authorities to merit confidence from care institutions and society and preserve authority. Moreover, limited reliability and validity of regulatory judgments increase the risk of limited improvement of the quality of health care. The goal of the study is to obtain insight in (dis) advantages of different regulatory instruments for regulation of health care.

METHOD

In this study, the reliability and validity of judgments generated by a lightly structured and highly structured regulatory instrument used by the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate are compared.

RESULTS

Results indicate that the lightly structured instrument causes a large variety in discussed topics in regulatory visits: indicators pointing out potential risks in care are not always part of these discussions, by which incentives to improve care remain unjustly undone. Both types of instruments show variations in the meaning of judgments, indicating validity problems.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study suggest that regulation of health care requires thorough appraisal of instruments. Several requirements are identified: first, an instrument that justifies the complexity of care with an accompanying explicit set of standards is necessary. Second, commitment of inspectors to the instrument is essential. And third, training of inspectors is indispensable.