2001 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
School Self-Evaluation Practices underthe School BoardAccountability Systems in the American Urban School Districts
| Project/Area Number |
11610259
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Educaion
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Aichi University of Education |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
TSUBOI Yoshimi Education, Aichi.University of Education, Professor, 教育学部, 教授 (50115664)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1999 – 2001
|
| Keywords | School Board / Accountability / School Evalnation / Principal Screening / School Improvemeont Plar |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
1. Until the late 1980s many urban school districts developed further more decentralized administrative systems. In Chicago local school councils were mandated for each school site to assure local school autonomy. In the late 1990s and early 21st century the new tendency in school governance is to make those school councils work as the school self-evaluation organization under the school board accountability system.
2. Quality education in the school and classroom, school accountability, shared control, and educational integrated governance are basic elements for the school self-evaluation and assessment. Liberty/choice, equality/equity, effectiveness/efficiency, and educational quality are 4 important values in school self-evaluation and assessment practices. The research analyzed and reached the conclusion that the followings are the most important indicators:
(1) To develop and implement a system of review, analysis, and evaluation of each school performance: School Improvement Plan in Chicago, Comprehensive Educational Plan in New York State and Site Action Plan in Los Angeles.
(2) Principal leadership and annual principal evaluation.
(3) Instructional excellence (curriculum development and many types of assessment).
(4) Staff development (cooperative teacher group work and peer evaluation).
(5) School based fiscal management.
(6) Parent and community involvement: Local School Council in Chicago, School Leadership Team in New York City and School Site Council in Los Angeles).
3. Each school district has developed the support system for the schools which have failed to make adequate progress: Re-Engineering Program in Chicago, SURR(Schools Under Registration Review) in jNew York State, and II/USP(Intermediate Intervention/Underp erforming Schools Program) in California State.
|
