Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697800493575.pdf (Liberia)
Findings of evaluation of self-evaluation procedures in primary/lower secondary schools 2001-2003 Overall findings Ministry of Education, Science and Culture April 2004 Ministry of Education, Science and Culture April 2004 Publisher: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture Sölvhólsgata 4 150 Reykjavík Iceland Tel: 545 9500 Fax: 562 3068 E-mail: postur@mrn.stjr.is Website: www.menntamalaraduneyti.is Layout and word processing: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture  2004 Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2 Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4 EVALUATIONS 2002-2003........................................................................................................... 5 1.
STATUS OF SELF-EVALUATION IN THE SCHOOLS............................................. 6 2.

SELF-EVALUATION PROCEDURES ..................................................................... 7 3.
SELF-EVALUATION PRACTICE............................................................................. 8 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... .9 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... .10 1.
CRITERIA................................................................................................................. 11 2.

EVALUATION TOOL .................................................................................................. 12 3.

SCHOOLS ASSESSED 2001-2003 .......................................................................... 13 4.
EVALUATORS......................................................................................................... 21 3 Introduction This report contains the principal findings of the first evaluation of self-evaluation procedures in primary/lower secondary schools in the period 2001-2003.

The report is sent to local authorities and primary/lower secondary schools.

The report may also be seen on the Ministry of Education website www.menntamalaraduneyti.is under Publications.

Art.
Art.

49 of the Compulsory Schools Act no.

66/1995 provides that each school shall introduce methods of evaluating the work of the school, including its teaching and administrative methods, communication within the school and relations with outside parties.

The article also provides that every five years an evaluation shall be made, on the initiative of the Minister of Education, on the self-evaluation procedures used in schools.
The provisions on evaluation of self- evaluation procedures in primary/lower secondary schools were implemented in the autumn of 2001.

Evaluation of self-evaluation procedures in 184 primary/lower secondary schools was completed in the spring of 2003. in The objective of the evaluation was to appraise the status of self- evaluation, self-evaluation procedures and the practice of self- evaluation laid down for individual schools.
The criteria evaluation of self-evaluation procedures are that the self-evaluation be formal, inclusive, reliable, collaborative, improvement-oriented, performance-oriented, individual-oriented, descriptive and analytical, and be made public (see Annex 1).

institution-oriented, In order to provide guidance for schools in their self-evaluation work, the Ministry of Education pushed a booklet, Sjálfsmat skóla (Schools’ Self-Evaluation) in the spring of 1997.
This deals with the purpose and objectives of self-evaluation, states criteria for self-evaluation of schools, and contains a checklist and guidelines for the form of the self-evaluation report.
The criteria on which evaluation of self-evaluation procedures in schools is based are also published in the general section of the National Curriculum Guide for primary/lower secondary schools (www.menntamalaraduneyti.is under Publications), and they were explained to schools by a letter sent to all primary/lower secondary schools before the evaluation commenced.
4 Evaluations 2001-2003 During the evaluation period 2001-2003 evaluations were made of the self-evaluation procedures of 184 primary/lower secondary schools in all constituencies.

For various reasons it was not possible to carry out an evaluation in a handful of schools.

In accord with legal provisions, the Ministry of Education advertised, and then appointed outside parties to carry out the evaluations (see further details on schools in Annex 3 and evaluators in Annex 4).
Evaluation of schools’ self-evaluation procedures was based on, among other things, data from the relevant school, site visits to the school and teachers, and representatives of other staff and students, as applicable.

interviews with administrators, In carrying out evaluations for each school, the evaluators recorded their findings on computerised questionnaires designed by the Ministry.

Essentially, there was a single questionnaire or tool, which covered the status of self-evaluation in each school.
Thus three versions of the questionnaire were prepared, taking account of how far the school had progressed in its self-evaluation work.

The questionnaire for schools which had carried out a systematic self- evaluation comprised 42 questions, with two or more possible answers.

The content was based upon the ten criteria (see Annex 1), and the questionnaire was made up of four main sections: 1.

The status of self-evaluation in the school, 2.

The school’s self-evaluation procedures, 3.


Self-evaluation practice, and 4.

Overall findings.

Where a school had tried out self-evaluation of certain aspects of the school’s work, a shorter questionnaire was used, comprising seven questions.

This was made up of two parts: 1.

The status of self- evaluation in the school, and 2.

Overall findings.
Overall findings.

Where a school had not done any work on self-evaluation or had only begun preparation of systematic self-evaluation, the evaluators recorded their findings on the third, and shortest, questionnaire, comprising four questions in two parts: 1.

The status of self- evaluation in the school, and 2.

Overall findings.
Overall findings.

In all cases the evaluators notified the principal of the relevant school of the findings of the evaluation before they were submitted to the Ministry, so that the principals had the opportunity to comment on the content.

At the end of each evaluation period, the Ministry published an interim report on the status of self-evaluation in the schools where evaluations had been made.
This was sent, along with the Ministry’s comments, to the local authority where the relevant school was located.

Copies were sent to the schools.

5 1.

1.

Status of self-evaluation in the schools Seventy-two of the 184 primary/lower secondary schools where evaluations were carried out in 2001–2003 had an official plan in writing for self-evaluation; this represents 52% of the schools.

A systematic self-evaluation has been carried out in 69 of the schools where an evaluation was made.
Systematic self-evaluation means an evaluation carried out in an organised fashion in accord with an action plan, and with procedures determined in advance.

The procedures used may be based upon a criteriaised self-evaluation system, or upon a composite or adapted system.

The intention was that the systematic self-evaluation be in progress when the evaluation was carried out.
The status of self-evaluation in the schools proved to be as follows: Status of self-evaluation Systematic self-evaluation of all main factors Systematic self-evaluation of some factors Some experiments in self-evaluation Preparation of systematic self-evaluation begun No work on self-evaluation Other Total No.

of schools 29 40 71 27 10 7 184 % 16% 22% 38% 15% 5% 4% 100% Of the 69 schools which had carried out a systematic self-evaluation, 29 had published a self-evaluation report.
The reports cover either all principal aspects of the school’s work, or specified aspects.

A self- evaluation report was in preparation in 18 of the 69 schools, and 22 had not published self-evaluation reports.

Thus a total of 57 of the 184 schools had published a self-evaluation report; this represents 31% of the schools.
As self-evaluation procedures and practice were under evaluation, those schools which had done no work on self-evaluation, had only made some experiments in self-evaluation, or had commenced preparation of systematic self-evaluation, were automatically deemed to have an unsatisfactory performance; these schools numbered 115.

Hence the following two sections of the report deal only with those 69 schools which had carried out a systematic self-evaluation of all or some aspects of the school’s work.

6 2.
6 2.

Self-evaluation procedures Of the 69 schools which had carried out a systematic self-evaluation, 29 based their self-evaluation procedures on a composite, adapted system.

Forty schools used self-evaluation procedures build upon a criteria based system.

Of those 71 schools where isolated experiments had been made with self-evaluation with regard to aspects of the school’s work, 61 used a composite and adapted system.

The self-evaluation of ten schools was build on criteria based systems.
With regard to whether the 69 schools’ self-evaluation systems met the criteria laid down by the Ministry of Education for self-evaluation systems (see Annex 1), findings were as follows: The self-evaluation system is deemed: Formal Inclusive Reliable Collaborative Improvement-oriented Performance-oriented Institution-oriented Individual-oriented Descriptive Analytical Made public * Yes or partly yes Yes % No % Total 54 55 69* According to the Ministry’s criteria, 29 of the 69 schools which had carried out systematic self-evaluation were deemed to have satisfactory procedures, 37 to have partially satisfactory procedures, and three to have unsatisfactory procedures.
7 3.

Self-evaluation practice In the 69 schools which had carried out a systematic self-evaluation, preparation and publicity were found to be satisfactory in 50 schools, and partially satisfactory in 16 schools.

In three schools preparation and publicity were deemed unsatisfactory.

In 39 of the 69 schools which had carried out a systematic self- evaluation, the implementation of improvements was in accord with the action and development plan made after the self-evaluation.
Ten schools had evaluated whether the objectives of the action and development plan had been achieved.

In 19 schools of the 69 which had carried out systematic self- improved evaluation, criteria had been drawn up for what performance in individual fields entailed.

In 47 cases, individual- oriented resources administration.
self-evaluation was utilised in human The practice of self-evaluation overall was deemed satisfactory in 24 schools of the 69 which had carried out systematic self-evaluation, and partially satisfactory in 41 schools.

In four schools the practice of self-evaluation was deemed unsatisfactory overall.
Sniðið: Línubil: Nákvæmlega 12 pt 8 Summary Sniðið: Línubil: Nákvæmlega 12 pt The principal findings of evaluations of self-evaluation procedures in 184 primary/lower secondary schools in the period 2001-2003 are that 69 schools have systematically worked on self-evaluation, or about 37.5% of the schools.

Of these, systematic self-evaluation of all principal factors in the school’s work has been carried out in 29 schools.
Seventy-one schools had made experiments with self- evaluation, and 27 schools had commenced preparations for systematic self-evaluation.

Ten schools had done no work on self- evaluation, of just over 5% of the schools.

The following table summarises the findings on evaluation of self- evaluation procedures in primary/lower secondary schools 2001- 2003: The school’s self-evaluation procedures are deemed: Satisfactory Partially satisfactory Unsatisfactory Total No.
of schools 29 37 118 184 % 16% 20% 64% 100% Thus 36% of the schools are deemed to have self-evaluation procedures which are satisfactory or partially satisfactory, while 64% are deemed to have unsatisfactory self-evaluation procedures.

When the practice of self-evaluation was evaluated for the 69 schools which had carried out a systematic self-evaluation, the findings were as follows: The practice of self-evaluation is deemed: Satisfactory Partially satisfactory Unsatisfactory Total No.
of schools 24 41 4 69 % 35% 59% 6% 100% Of the 184 primary/lower secondary schools of which an evaluation was made in this period, 19 schools or 10% fulfilled in every way the Ministry’s criteria both for self-evaluation procedures, and for practice of self-evaluation.

With the publication of this report, the first process of the first evaluation period is complete.
It is clear that the vast majority of the schools have done work on self-evaluation, while at the time of the 9 Sniðið: Línubil: Nákvæmlega 12 pt evaluation, some schools had made more progress than others.

The trend over the period was that results improved as time progressed, and the proportion of schools which had completed a systematic self- evaluation rose.

10 Annexes 1.
10 Annexes 1.

Criteria The Ministry’s criteria which form the basis for evaluation of self- evaluation procedures in schools are that the self-evaluation be: 1.

Formal A description of the procedures for self-evaluation must exist in the self-evaluation report, in the school’s syllabus, and possibly in other written documents from the school.

This should specify whether a recognised self-evaluation system, or a composite adapted system.
The manner in which the self-evaluation is carried out overall must be explained.

The description must state who is in charge of the task, who carries it out at any time, and who is included in it.

2.

Inclusive The self-evaluation shall cover all the principal aspects of the school’s work, i.e.

objectives, administration, study, tuition, study evaluation, students, staff, facilities and outside relations.
The schools are not, however, expected to be able to evaluate every aspect in equal detail every year.

3.

Reliable It is important that the self-evaluation be based upon dependable data and reliable measurements.

Data from the school’s records, such as students’ academic records and records of absences, must be available.

Schools cannot, however, base the evaluation solely on statistical data.
They must also evaluate their work by other means, such as opinion surveys among various groups, such as students, staff, parents, schools to which students have transferred, the public, employers and graduates of the school.

4.

Collaborative All staff must be involved, in one way or another, with the self- evaluation.

In the planning and preparation of the self-evaluation, the scope of the project must be explained to all staff.
General accord must also be achieved with regard to the practice of the evaluation.

Division of tasks must be clear, as must management and responsibility.

A this stage, participation in the self-evaluation by students, parents and other stake-holders must be borne in mind.

5.

Improvement-oriented The self-evaluation report must include an action and work plan for the improvements in the school’s work which are to be implemented following the self-evaluation.
Information must also be provided on how the objectives of the improvement plan are to be achieved.

Criteria of what is entailed by improved results must be defined.

11 6.

Performance-oriented The school shall work on evaluating whether the school’s objectives have been achieved, and what the school’s work has achieved on the basis of the criteria it has drawn up for itself.
These criteria may refer, for instance, to such factors as academic performance, well- being, good conduct, absences and drop-out rate.

7.

Institution- and individual-oriented The self-evaluation must focus both on the institution itself and on the individuals within it.

For example, evaluations may be made of the school’s performance in comparison with other schools, e.g.

in national criteria examinations, and in evaluation of administration and tuition.

8.
8.

Descriptive The self-evaluation report must include a concise description (text, figures, tables) of the school’s work.

The description must relate to the establishment of objectives.

9.

Analytical The self-evaluation report must include an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, applied systematically to each aspect of the evaluation, and then in the final summary.

10.
10.

Made public It must be determined in advance who is to have access to specified aspects of the self-evaluation, while a self-evaluation report must be published.

It must be ensured in this context that legal provisions are honoured, for instance with regard to the handling of personal data.

12 2.

Evaluation tool The Ministry of Education has designed a computerised questionnaire on which evaluators record their findings.
The questionnaire has been prepared in three versions, according to the status of self-evaluation in each school.

The main questionnaire comprises 42 questions, to be answered by the evaluators of the school has worked on a systematic self-evaluation.

The questionnaire comprises five main sections: I.

Status of self-evaluation – the objective is to elicit information on the status of work on self-evaluation in the school.

II.
II.

Self-evaluation procedures – the objective is to elicit information on the system used by the school.

The criteria are that the evaluation be formal, inclusive, reliable, collaborative, improvement-oriented, individual-oriented, performance-oriented, descriptive and analytical, and be made public.

Questions are posed on each of these factors.

institution-oriented, III.

Practice of self-evaluation – the objective is to elicit information on how successful the self-evaluation has been in practice.
IV.

Overall findings – the objective is to elicit the final findings of the evaluators, on to self-evaluation procedures, and on the other with regard to the practice of the self- evaluation.

In order to answer this section, the evaluators base their answers on parts II and III respectively (see above).

the one hand with regard V. Report – The objective is that a brief summary (not more than one A4 page) be made of the findings, together with comments and other information from the evaluators.
If the school has only made isolated experiments with self-evaluation of certain aspects of the school’s work, the evaluators fill out a questionnaire which comprises seven questions.

If no work has been done on self-evaluation, or if preparation of self-evaluation has commenced, a shorter questionnaire is used.

In all cases the evaluators submit a brief report with the questionnaire.

13 3.

Schools assessed 2001 - 2003 Autumn 2001 Reykjavík constituency 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.


Austurbæjarskóli, Reykjavík Ártúnsskóli, Reykjavík Fellaskóli, Reykjavík Grandaskóli, Reykjavík Hagaskóli, Reykjavík Hlíðaskóli, Reykjavík Klébergsskóli, Reykjavík Ölduselsskóli, Reykjavík Réttarholtsskóli, Reykjavík Suðurhlíðarskóli, Reykjavík Vesturbæjarskóli, Reykjavík Southwest constituency 12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.


Engidalsskóli, Hafnarfjörður Flataskóli, Garðabær Lækjarskóli, Hafnarfjörður Setbergskóli, Hafnarfjörður Smáraskóli, Kópavogur Snælandsskóli, Kópavogur Valhúsaskóli, Seltjarnarnes Northeast constituency 19.

20.

21.

22.

Brekkuskóli, Akureyri Dalvíkurskóli, Dalvík Giljaskóli, Akureyri Grenivíkurskóli, Grýtubakkahreppur 14 23.

24.

25.

26.

27.
24.

25.

26.

27.

Grunnskólinn í Hrísey, Hrísey Hrafnagilsskóli, Eyjafjarðarsveit Húsabakkaskóli, Dalvík Oddeyrarskóli, Akureyri Valsárskóli, Svalbarðsstrandahreppur Spring 2002 Reykjavík constituency 28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.


Árbæjarskóli, Reykjavík Breiðagerðisskóli, Reykjavík Foldaskóli, Reykjavík Hamraskóli, Reykjavík Háteigsskóli, Reykjavík Húsaskóli, Reykjavík Hvassaleitisskóli, Reykjavík Ísaksskóli, Reykjavík Korpuskóli, Reykjavík Landakotsskóli, Reykjavík Langholtsskóli, Reykjavík Laugalækjarskóli, Reykjavík Laugarnesskóli, Reykjavík 41.

Melaskóli, Reykjavík 42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.


Rimaskóli, Reykjavík Selásskóli, Reykjavík Seljaskóli, Reykjavík Tjarnarskóli, Reykjavík Vesturhlíðarskóli, Reykjavík Vogaskóli, Reykjavík Öskjuhlíðarskóli, Reykjavík 15 Southwest constituency 49.

50.

51.

52.

Álftanesskóli, Bessastaðir Digranesskóli, Kópavogur Hofstaðaskóli, Garðabær Lindaskóli, Kópavogur 53.

Mýrarhúsaskóli, Seltjarnarnes 54.

Víðistaðaskóli, Hafnarfjörður 55.

Waldorfskólinn, Kópavogur 56.

Öldutúnsskóli, Hafnarfjörður Northeast constituency 57.

58.

59.
58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

Árskógarskóli, Dalvík Barnaskólinn, Ólafsfjörður Gagnfræðaskólinn, Ólafsfjörður Glerárskóli, Akureyri Grunnskólinn í Bárðardal, Þingeyjarsveit Grunnskólinn í Grímsey, Grímseyjarhreppur Lundarskóli, Akureyri Síðuskóli, Akureyri Stórutjarnarskóli, Þingeyjarsveit Þelamerkurskóli, Hörgárbyggð Autumn 2002 Reykjavík constituency 67.

68.

69.

Álftamýrarskóli, Reykjavík Breiðholtsskóli, Reykjavík Engjaskóli, Reykjavík 16 Southwest constituency 70.

71.

72.

73.
71.

72.

73.

Hvaleyrarskóli, Hafnarfjörður Kársnesskóli, Kópavogur Kópavogsskóli, Kópavogur Varmárskóli, Mosfellsbær South constituency 74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.
Ásgarðsskóli, Kjósarhreppur Barnaskólinn í Vestmannaeyjar Brautarholtsskóli, Skeiða- og Gnúpverjahreppur Flúðaskóli, Hrunamannahreppur Gaulverjaskóli, Gaulverjabæjarhreppur Gerðaskóli, Reykjanesbær Grunnskóli, Mýrdalshreppur Grunnskólinn á Hellu, Rangárþingi ytra Grunnskóli Bláskógabyggðar, Laugarvatn Grunnskólinn í Austur-Landeyjum, Rangárþing eystra Þykkvabæjarskóli, Rangárþing ytra Grunnskólinn í Fljótshlíð, Rangárþing eystra Grunnskólinn í Grindavík Grunnskólinn í Hveragerði Grunnskólinn í Sandgerði, Reykjanesbær Grunnskólinn í Þorlákshöfn, Ölfushreppur Hamarsskóli, Vestmannaeyjar Heiðarskóli, Reykjanesbær Holtaskóli, Reykjanesbær Hvolsskóli, Rangárþing eystra Kirkjubæjarskóli, Skaftárhreppur Laugalandsskóli, Rangárþing ytra Lágafellsskóli, Mosfellsbær 17 97.
Ljósafossskóli, Grímsnes- og Grafningshreppur 98.

Myllubakkaskóli, Reykjanesbær 99.

Njarðvíkurskóli, Reykjanesbær 100.

Reykholtsskóli, Bláskógabyggð 101.

102.

Seljalandsskóli, Rangárþing eystra Þingborgarskóli, Hraungerðishreppur 103.

Villingaholtsskóli, Villingaholtshreppur Spring 2003 Northwest constituency: 104.

Andakílsskóli, Borgarfjarðarsveit 105.

Árskóli, Sveitarfélagið Skagafjörður 106.

107.

Brekkubæjarskóli, Akranes Broddanesskóli, Broddaneshreppur 108.
Drangsnesskóli, Kaldrananeshreppur 109.

Finnbogastaðaskóli, Árneshreppur 110.

Grundaskóli, Akranes 111.

Grunnskóli, Akrahreppur 112.

Grunnskóli, Bolungarvík 113.

Grunnskóli, Húnaþing vestra 114.

Grunnskóli, Önundarfjörður 115.

Grunnskóli, Vesturbyggð 116.

Grunnskólinn, Hólar 117.

Grunnskólinn, Blönduós 118.

Grunnskólinn á Borðeyri 119.

Grunnskólinn, Hellissandur 120.

Grunnskólinn, Hofsós 121.

Grunnskólinn á Hólmavík 122.

Grunnskólinn, Ísafjörður 123.

Grunnskólinn á Suðureyri 18 124.


Grunnskólinn, Tálknafjörður 125.

Grunnskólinn á Þingeyri 126.

Grunnskólinn, Borgarnes 127.

Grunnskólinn, Búðardalur 128.

Grunnskólinn, Grundarfjörður 129.

Grunnskólinn í Ólafsvík 130.

Grunnskólinn, Stykkishólmur 131.

Grunnskólinn, Tjarnarlund 132.

Heiðarskóli, Leirársveit 133.

Höfðaskóli, Skagaströnd 134.

Húnavallaskóli, Torfalækjarhreppur 135.

Kleppjárnsreykjaskóli, Borgarfjarðarsveit 136.


Laugargerðisskóli, Kolbeinsstaðahreppur and Eyja- og Miklaholtshreppur 137.

Lýsuhólsskóli, Snæfellsbær 138.

Reykhólaskóli, Reykhólahreppur 139.

Súðavíkurskóli, Súðavíkurhreppur 140.

Varmahlíðarskóli, Sveitarfélagið Skagafjörður 141.

Varmalandsskóli, Borgarbyggð South constituency 142.

Barnaskólinn, Eyrarbakki and Stokkseyri Southwest constitutency: 143.
Hjallaskóli, Kópavogsbær Autumn 2003 Evaluations were made of the self-evaluation procedures of the following schools in the autumn of 2003: 19 Northeast conssituency 144.

Borgarhólsskóli, Húsavík 145.

Brúarásskóli, Norður Hérað 146.

Fellaskóli í Fellahreppur 147.

Grunnskóli, Borgarfjörður 148.

Grunnskóli, Fáskrúðsfjörður 149.

Grunnskóli, Mjóafjörður 150.

Grunnskóli, Reyðarfjörður 151.

Grunnskóli, Siglufjörður 152.

Grunnskóli, Skútustaðahreppur 153.

Grunnskóli, Svalbarðshreppur 154.


Grunnskólinn, Bakkafjörður 155.

Grunnskóli, Eskifjörður 156.

Grunnskólinn á Raufarhöfn 157.

Grunnskóli, Stöðvarfjörður 158.

Grunnskólinn á Þórshöfn 159.

Grunnskólinn, Djúpivogur 160.

Grunnskólinn, Egilsstaðir and Eiðar 161.

Grunnskólinn, Breiðdalur 162.

Hafralækjarskóli, Húsavíkurbær and Þingeyjarsveit 163.

Hallormsstaðaskóli, Austur- Hérað 164.

Hlíðarskóli, Akureyri 165.

Litlulaugaskóli, Þingeyjarsveit 166.

Nesskóli, Fjarðabyggð 167.


Seyðisfjarðarskóli, Seyðisfjörður 168.

Vopnafjarðarskóli, Vopnafjörður 169.

Öxarfjarðarskóli, Kelduneshreppur South constitutency 170.

Grunnskólinn Hofgarði, Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður 171.

Hafnarskóli; Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður 172.

Heppuskóli, Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður 20 173.

Hrollaugsstaðaskóli, Sveitarfélagið Hornarfjörður 174.

Nesjaskóli, Sveitarfélagið Hornafjörður 175.

Vallaskóli, Sveitarfélagið Árborg Southwest constitutency: 176.

Garðaskóli, Garðabær 177.


178.

Salaskóli, Kópavogur Stóru–Vogaskóli, Vogar Reykjavíkur constitutency 179.

180.

Borgaskóli; Reykjavík Fossvogsskóli, Reykjavík 181.

Hólabrekkuskóli, Reykjavík 182.

Ingunnarskóli; Reykjavík 183.

Víkurskóli, Reykjavík 184.

Waldorfskólinn Sólstafir, Reykjavík 21 4.


Evaluators Evaluations of self-evaluation procedures in each school were carried out by two to three people, who together had experience in self- evaluation, the work of primary/lower secondary schools, and quality control.

The evaluations were carried out by individuals, companies and public agencies; each evaluation team made an evaluation in at least three schools.

The evaluations were carried out by the following: Autumn 2001: 1.
Auður Kristinsdóttir and Steinunn Helga Lárusdóttir 2.

Anna Lilja Sigurðardóttir and Helga M. Steinsson 3.

Erna M. Sveinbjarnardóttir and Sigurjón Mýrdal 4.

Inga Bára Þórðardóttir, Jóhanna G. Kristjánsdóttir and Sylvía Guðmundsdóttir 5.

Kristín Jónsdóttir and Ólafur H. Jóhannsson 6.

Lovísa Kristjánsdóttir and Védís Grönvold 7.

Trausti Þorsteinsson and Vignir Einarsson Spring 2002: 1.

Anna Lilja Sigurðardóttir and Katrín Frímannsdóttir 2.

Ársæll Guðmundsson and Vignir Einarsson 3.


Deloitte & Touche 4.

Jóhanna G. Kristjánsdóttir and Sylvía Guðmundsdóttir 5.

KPMG Ráðgjöf 6.

Lovísa Kristjánsdóttir and Védís Grönvold 7.

Iceland University of Education Research Institute 22 Autumn 2002: 1.

Deloitte & Touche 2.

3.

IMG – Ráðgarður Jóhanna G. Kristjánsdóttir and Sylvía Guðmundsdóttir 4.

KPMG Ráðgjöf 5.

Lovísa Kristjánsdóttir and Védís Grönvold Spring 2003: 1.

Deloitte & Touche 2.

3.


IMG – Ráðgarður Jóhanna G. Kristjánsdóttir and Sylvía Guðmundsdóttir 4.

KPMG Ráðgjöf 5.

Lovísa Kristjánsdóttir and Védís Grönvold 6.

Iceland University of Education Research Institute 7.

Vignir Einarsson and Þórleif Drífa Jónsdóttir Autumn 2003: 1.

Deloitte & Touche 2.

IMG 3.

Jóhanna G. Kristjánsdóttir and Sylvía Guðmundsdóttir 4.

KPMG Ráðgjöf 5.

Lovísa Kristjánsdóttir and Védís Grönvold 6.

Iceland University of Education Research Institute 7.
Vignir Einarsson and Þórleif Drífa Jónsdóttir 23