Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014)...
-
Upload
diana-clarke -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014)...
![Page 1: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015
Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014)
External evaluation
![Page 2: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Ray Kirtley
- Independent global learning consultant
- Faculty of Education, University of Hull
- Global Learning Association
![Page 3: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The role of the external evaluator
For the meetings (London and Sweden):
To give objective and impartial feedback that will support the wider development of the project
For the project as a whole:
To suggest evaluation tools appropriate to the project’s internal evaluation processes To suggest how feedback might be managed and how evaluative data might be presented at the final project meeting
![Page 4: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
External Evaluation of Meeting 2 (London)Highlights and challenges
• Mixed format appreciated
• Whole group discussions enjoyable for some, more of a challenge for others
• Thought provoking presentations but more time needed to reflect and discuss in national groups
• The partner schools are well understood by all and we know more about the other education system – but not always about what other schools hope to gain from the project
• The goals and expectations of the project clearer to some than to others – the aims need to refer to developing school leaders but some discussion was about school development more generally
![Page 5: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
External Evaluation of Meeting 3 Quality indicators
• The overall aims of the meeting were met
• Sufficient information was sent before the meeting and communication was efficient
• Project partners were given time for introductions (or re-introductions)
• The agenda was respected and any changes negotiated
• Everyone contributed to the meeting
• The working environment was adequate
• Planned activities have taken place
• Everyone has a clear idea of their next steps
• Any others?
![Page 6: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Aims of Meeting 3
• Sharing and evaluating what has been done so far in pilot schools through individual reports from pairs of schools
• Good practice? Challenges?
• Sharing plans for further action research between now and the final project meeting:
- Job shadowing and CPD- Embedding practice into school system- Learning from each other – schools and Local Authorities- Dissemination workshops- Writing up and publication?
![Page 7: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Evaluation (formative and summative)
What did we do? (Record)
How did it go? (Review)
How do we know? (Evaluate)
What should we change (if anything)?
What do we do next?
![Page 8: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Evaluation of outputs (or results):
•Was the output produced? (on time and to plan?)
•How were any changes rationalised
•Is there existing evaluative information?
•Any additional impressions from the evaluator
![Page 9: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
What do these include (deliverables)
•Events – local meetings and workshops
•Pilot activities in schools
•In-service training including job shadowing
•Website
•Local and wider dissemination
•Reports – internal and external, publication?
![Page 10: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Evaluation of outcomes:
•Stronger partnership between the two regions
•Profile of school leadership raised
•Continued sharing of good practice (both locally and between the regions)
•Any other significant outcomes
![Page 11: Southwark, UK/ Järfälla, SE Regio Project 2013 – 2015 Project meeting (10 – 12 November 2014) External evaluation.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4292/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Evaluation of the process:
•Work of the project team
•Feedback from schools
•Transnational elements and added value
•Effective communications