This article uses a policy scientific approach to reconstruct assumptions underlying the Dutch Educational Supervision Act. We show an example of how to reconstruct and evaluate a program theory that is based on legislation of inspection. The assumptions explain how inspection leads to school improvement. Evaluation of these assumptions is used to predict the (in)effectiveness of this legislation. The article concludes by discussing the advantages and drawbacks of this kind of approach as a starting point for impact and effect studies. As the program theory of inspection includes elements common to other kinds of educational interventions and reforms, these elements can also be considered for other types of program theory.
Brimblecombe, N., Shaw, M., & Ormston, M. (1996). Teachers’ intention to change practice as a result of OFSTED school inspections. Educational Management & Administration, 24, 339-354.
2.
Chapman, C. (2001). Changing classrooms through inspection. School Leadership and Management, 21, 59-73.
3.
Chen, H. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Cullingford, C., Daniels, S., & Brown, J. (1998). The effects of OFSTED inspections on school performance. Huddersfield, UK: Professor Cullingford School.
5.
Dijkstra, A. B., Karsten, S., Veenstra, R., & Visscher, A. J. (2001). Het oog der natie: Scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties [The nation’s eye; standards for publishing school performance]. Assen, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
6.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
7.
Doolaard, S., & Karstanje, P. (2001). Gebruik van publieke prestatie-indicatoren voor schoolverbetering [Use of public performance indicators for school improvement]. In A. B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra, & A. J. Visscher (Eds.), Het oog der natie: Scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties (pp. 155-173). Assen, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
8.
Dronkers, J., & Veenstra, R. (2001). Schoolprestatie-indicatoren in het voortgezet onderwijs: Start, reacties en vervolg [School performance indicators in secondary education]. In A. B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra, & A. J. Visscher (Eds.), Het oog der natie: Scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties (pp. 21-36). Assen, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
9.
Early, P. (1998). School improvement after inspection: School and LEA Responses. London: Sage.
10.
Elte, R. (1988). Van het toezicht op het onderwijs: Over de inrichting en het functioneren van de inspectie in het algemeen voortgezet onderwijs en het lager beroepsonderwijs [About school inspections: Set-up and functioning of the inspectorate in general secondary education and lower vocational education]. De Lier, the Netherlands: Academisch Boeken Centrum.
11.
Educational Council. (2001). De markt meester? Een verkenning naar marktwerking in het onderwijs [Master of market? An exploration of market forces in education]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
12.
Fleurke, F., & Huizenga, F. D. (1988). Methodische aspecten van beleidstheorie [Methodical aspects of policy theory]. Bestuurswetenschappen, 42, 467-486.
13.
Geijsel, F. (2001). Schools and innovations: Conditions fostering the implementation of educational innovations. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: University Press.
14.
Gray, C., & Gardner, J. (1999). The impact of school inspections. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 455-469.
15.
Gray, J., & Wilcox, B. (1995). Good school, bad school: Evaluating performance and encouraging improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
16.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1995). Inspection and school improvement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 117-126.
17.
Hoogerwerf, A. (1984). Beleid berust op veronderstellingen: De beleidstheorie [Policy is based on assumptions: Policy theory]. Acta Politica: Tijdschrift Voor Politocologie, 4, 493-531.
18.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
19.
Karstanje, P. N. (1996). Beleidstheorie basisvorming: Een proeve van reconstructie [Policy theory of the basic education: An exercise of reconstruction]. Amsterdam: SCO rapport 412.
20.
Karsten, S., & Visscher, A. (2001). Ervaringen met het openbaar maken van schoolprestaties in Engeland en Frankrijk [Experiences with publishing school performance indicators in England and France]. In A. B. Dijkstra, S. Karsten, R. Veenstra, & A. J. Visscher (Eds.), Het oog der natie: Scholen op rapport; standaarden voor de publicatie van schoolprestaties (pp. 36-54). Assen, the Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
21.
Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. The Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769-783.
22.
Kluger, A. A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
23.
Kogan, M., & Maden, M. (1999). An evaluation of evaluators: The OFSTED system of school inspection. In C. Cullingford (Ed.), An inspector calls: OFSTED and its effect on school standards (pp.9-32). London: Kogan Page.
24.
Leeuw, F. L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 5-20.
25.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques. New York: John Wiley.
26.
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. (1999). Varieteit en waarborg; voorstellen voor de ontwikkeling van toezicht op onderwijs [Variety and guarantee; proposals for the development of school inspections]. Retrieved from http://www.minocw.nl/toezicht/nota2/03.html
27.
Perrin, B. (1999). Performance measurement: Does the reality match the rhetoric? A rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 101-111.
28.
Reezigt, G. J. (2001). A framework for effective school improvement: Final report of the ESI project. Groningen, the Netherlands: GION, Institute for Educational Research, University of Groningen.
29.
Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? OFSTED inspections and school examination results in the UK. Economics of Education Review, 23, 143-151.
30.
Shaw, I., Newton, D. P., Aitkin, M., & Darnell, R. (2003). Do OFSTED inspections of secondary education make a difference to GCSE results?British Educational Research Journal, 29, 63-77.
31.
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 277-310.
32.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Toulmin, S. (1964). The uses of argument (Rev. ed). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2003). De prestatieparadox in de publieke sector [The performance paradox in the public sector]. Beleidswetenschap, 2, 123-143.
35.
Visscher, A. J. (2002). A framework for studying school performance feedback systems. In A. J. Visscher & R. Coe (Eds.), School improvement through performance feedback (pp.41-75). Lisse, the Netherlands:Swets & Zeitlinger.
36.
Walraven, G. (1991). De kwaliteit van de beleidstheorie; visies uit de beleidspraktijk [The quality of the policy theory: Visions from policy practice]. Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente, Faculteit der Bestuurskunde.
37.
Waterreus, I. (2003). Lessons in teacher pay: Studies on incentives and the labor market for teachers. Amsterdam:ICO.
38.
Weiss, C. H. (1997). Program theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. In D. J. Rog & D. Fournier (Eds.), Progress and future directions in evaluation: Perspectives on theory, practice, and methods (New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 41-55). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Wiebes, F. (Ed.). (1998). Van buiten naar binnen: Waardevolle ideeën van buitenstaanders [From outside to inside: Valuable ideas from outsiders]. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Delwel Uitgeverij BV.
