Inspectorate of Education should consider perception of negative assessments more
Negative assessments of schools by the Dutch Inspectorate of Education trigger strong emotions. This has consequences for the ability to improve quality, research from USG (Utrecht University) shows. Unexpected negative assessments or a rating of ‘very weak’ can lead to anger, sadness or feelings of powerlessness among staff members and subsequently do not motivate improvements. The researchers call upon the Inspectorate and the sector to have more attention for the emotional impact of a negative rating.
A negative rating can also lead to acceptance, a realisation of urgency, which can then lead to a breakthrough. It turns out that the feared reputational damage turns remains limited, but the rating 'very weak' can have a disrupting effect on the reputations of schools in vulnerable areas; think along the lines of student numbers decreasing or staff members leaving.
The Inspectorate of Education assesses schools for quality and can also give a negative rating in the process (insufficient or very weak). Commissioned by the Inspectorate, a team from USG Consultancy investigated how school teams perceive negative ratings, which consequences these have for their ability to improve quality sustainably and which points of improvement there are for the process. They based this research on, among other things, interviews with 64 respondents from 37 schools in Primary Education, Secondary Education, Vocational Education and Special Education.
Four scenarios of perception
The analysis reveals four typical reactions to a negative rating from the Inspectorate:
- Blow: The rating is unexpected and is not experienced as helping. This leads to feelings of anger, sadness and powerlessness.
- Breakthrough: The rating has a big impact, yet is experienced by school teams as recognition and provides an opportunity to realise change.
- Nuisance: The rating is issued while an improvement process is already ongoing. It is experienced as demotivating and unfair, resulting in falling motivation decreasing and teams focusing on jumpong through the hoops of inspection frameworks, rather than genuine improvements.
- Nudge: The rating is expected, leads to acceptance and helps to cross the Ts.
What comes as blow can eventually become a breakthrough, but also a bummer. How schools experience control, relevance, honesty and communication plays a key role here. School principals play a key role in the speed with which teams can move from one scenario to another.
Emotional impact and reputation
Negative ratings trigger strong emotions, which then influence the motivation. A feeling of being misunderstood or stigmatised, for instance by the label 'very weak', can impede recovery. At the same time, such a rating can also create the realisation of urgency and work to initiate change.
Such a negative rating can sometimes hit like a thunderstrike,
says Project Coordinator Sjors Overman. We're not always fully aware of that. It sets off a chain reaction, and the emotional impact is big. Because you are effectively telling people: Team, you're not doing your job well. That hits people deeply, especially in education. Just imagine what it would do to you if someone suddenly says: Your work is very weak.
Another element is the fear of reputational damage. Although school principals often fear reputational damage due to a negative rating, damage often stays limited. Parents often value atmosphere and communication more than inspection assessments, and select schools because they are nearby or, for instance, operated by a particular denomination, religious or otherwise.
For a number of schools which are already having difficulties, it can be additionally damaging,
Overman says, such as schools in shrinkage areas, where staff recruitment is already difficult, where student numbers are already decreasing. These schools can be more impacted by this than schools in a more dynamic area.
Various recommendations to all involved parties
The researchers provide concrete recommendations to all involved parties in their report, because besides the Inspectorate, the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the schools themselves are of course required to take action too.
To the Inspectorate of Education, it is of general importance that they keep the potential perception of the negative assessment in mind and which effect it could have in the specific context of a particular school. In very concrete words, this means:
- Recognise the crucial role of school leaders in the improvement process, and help them with it to retain control.
- Explore the space for a postponed rating, so the school team can set improvements in motion.
- Train inspectors in empathic communication and in sensing tension during inspection visits.
- Look well at the school identity and the didactic vision. This enables the school board to easier translate the assessment logic to its own methods.
Abolish the rating ‘very weak’. The label ‘insufficient’ can suffice.
To the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the researchers advise mostly to investigate together with the Inspectorate whether or not a final rating can be postponed until the recovery track is completed in some cases. A repeated negative rating undermines the motivation if the team is demonstrably on the right track, but only just falls short of passing. An extension is then more suitable than a repeated failing rating which obstructs recovery. Furthermore, they believe it is a good idea if the label ‘very weak’ were to be abolished. This label is experienced as stigmatising and obstructs motivation. The label ‘insufficient’ can suffice.
To school managements and school boards, it is important that they keep the impact of the negative assessment on the team in mind and commit themselves to improvement. If the team experiences a lack of control and a feeling of powerlessness, feelings of fear, frustration and anger can come about. So providing ownership and perspective is important. The researchers emphasise the importance of teachers' active involvement in the improvement process, so they will take ownership over the quality development.
They also advise schools to communicate with parents proactively and transparently. Doing so helps to prevent the formation of negative images and to retain their trust.
Finally, administrators can be expected to support the principals in their role as changemaker, and to provide sufficient resources.
Research Team
Sjors Overman (Project Coordinator), Judith van Erp, Nienke Kuitenbrouwer, Isa Bertram, Stefan Heinink and Marlies Honingh.
More information
Would you like to know more? If so, please contact Project Coordinator Sjors Overman (s.p.overman@uu.nl) or read the full report Donderslagen en doorbraken. De emotionele impact van negatieve inspectie-oordelen op schoolteams (in Dutch).