This paper addresses if, and to what extent, the current working methods of the Dutch Inspectorate of Education affect the governance of school boards in schools for primary education. A key facet of the working method is the inspection meeting with the school board. Drawing upon a large quantitative study (n = 244) we are able to identify some changes in school board governance due to these inspection meetings. School boards that had an inspection meeting indicate changes in their governance of quality assurance and data use, and in the amount of data that they collect on the functioning of their schools. School boards indicate very small amounts of activities with regard to the curriculum and instruction in their schools.
ClaassenAHulshofMvan KuijkJ. (2008) De Beleidscontext van zwakpresterende basisscholen. Nijmegen: ITS, Radboud Universiteit.
6.
Department of Education, Culture, and Science. (2009). Memorandum of understanding of the reenacted Supervision Act. Nr.32193, 3. [Memorie van toelichting - Wijziging van de Wet op het onderwijstoezicht en enige andere wetten in verband met de invoering van geïntegreerd toezicht en de gewijzigde rol van de Inspectie van het onderwijs bij het toezichtproces - Hoofdinhoud]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.
7.
EhrenMCMHoninghM (2011) Risk-based school inspections in the Netherlands: A critical reflection on intended effects and causal mechanisms. Studies in Educational Evaluation37
(4): 239–248.
8.
EhrenMCMVisscherAJ (2008) The relationship between school inspections, school characteristics and school improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies56(2): 205–227.
9.
EhrenMCMAltrichterHMcNamaraG. (2013) Impact of school inspections on teaching and learning; Describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in seven European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability25
(1): 3–43.
10.
HofmanRH (1995) Contextual influences on school effectiveness: The role of school boards. School Effectiveness and School Improvement6
(4): 308–331.
11.
HofmanRHHofmanWHGuldemondH (2002) School governance, culture and student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice5
(3): 249–272.
12.
HoninghMEHoogeEH (2009) Reconsidering the tension between bureaucracy and professionalism in publicly and privately funded schools. School Leadership & Management29
(4): 405–420.
13.
HoogeEHHoninghME (2014) Are school boards aware of the educational quality of their schools?Educational Management Administration and Leadership.Vol. 42(4S): 139–154.
14.
Inspectorate of Education. (2010) Evaluatie risicogestuurd toezicht. [Evaluation riskbased school inspections]. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
15.
JanssensFJGde WolfI (2009) Analyzing the assumptions of a policy program: An ex-ante evaluation of ‘Educational Governance’ in the Netherlands. American Journal of Evaluation30
(3): 411–425.
LandJ (2002) Local school boards under review: Their role and effectiveness in relation to students’ academic achievement. Review of Educational Research72
(2): 229–278.
18.
MartinJ (2008) Inspection of education and skills: From improvement to accountability. In: DavisHMartinS (eds) Public Services Inspection in the UK. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 55–70.
19.
McAdamsDR (2006) What School Boards Can Do: Reform Governance for Urban Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
McNamaraGO’HaraJ (2005) Internal review and self-evaluation – the chosen route to school improvement in Ireland?Studies in Educational Evaluation31: 267–282.
21.
MordauntJCornforthC (2004) The role of boards in the failure and turnaround of non-profit organizations. Public Money and Management24
(4): 227–234.
22.
PloughBL (2011) School board governance and student achievement: School board members’ perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs. Dissertation. San Diego State University, US.
23.
RansonCFarrellCPennN. (2005) Does governance matter for school improvement?School Effectiveness and School Improvement16
(3): 305–325.
24.
SaatciogluAMooresSSargutC. (2011) The role of school board social capital in district governance: Effects on financial and academic outcomesLeadership and Policy in Schools10
(1): 1–42.
25.
SmeetsGVerkroostJ (2011) Selectief en slagvaardig; werken met de WOT (2000–2010). Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
26.
StringfieldS (2002) Big change questions: Is large-scale educational reform possible?Journal of Educational Change3: 63–73.
27.
ThruppM (1998) Exploring the politics of blame: School inspection and its contestation in New Zealand and England. Comparative Education34
(2): 195–209.
