natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Belgium (German-speaking Community), Denmark, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg(ISCED 2) follow this model.
Tak model poznajo v Belgiji (nemško govoreča skupnost), na Danskem, v Nemčiji, Italiji in Luksemburgu (nižja sekundarna stopnja).
These bodies may be granted significant powers, as in Denmark, or may have largely consultative role as in Belgium (German-speaking Community).
V teh državah imajo organi šole lahko precejšnja pooblastila, na primer na Danskem, ali pa je njihova vloga predvsem svetovalna, na primer v Belgiji (nemško govoreča skupnost).
In some countries, it is possible to include external members but this decision is left to the discretion of the school.
V nekaterih državah lahko šole same odločijo, ali bodo v te organe imenovale tudi zunanje člane.
2) School heads were obliged to set up a school body if requested by parents and teachers.
) Ravnatelji so dolžni oblikovati organ upravljanja šole, če tako zahtevajo starši in učitelji.
Policies and Measures members from users (parent and pupils).
Politikain ukrepi
In the same way, in the United Kingdom (England), guiding principles are in place to make sure that all of a school’s stakeholders are represented, including parents, school staff, the local authority, the community, and, for some schools, the ‘foundation’ or relevant religious body.
V večini držav je k delu organov šol povabljeno širše zastopstvo, ki najpogosteje vključuje predstavnike lokalne oblasti, odgovorne za šolstvo, manj pogosto pa tudi predstavnike širše skupnosti.
However, in the majority of cases, the composition of the school management body reflects the desire to give the deciding role to one of the groups.
Taka ureditev sestave organov upravljanja šole odseva željo po uravnoteženju moči med različnimi strokovnimi skupinami in skupinami uporabnikov: šolskim vodstvom, učitelji, starši, učenci, lokalnimi oblastmi itn.
These conclusions are based on the legal frameworks in place, actual practice at school level may obviously differ.
Prikazani primeri so povzeti iz pravne ureditve držav, dejanska praksa na šolah pa je seveda lahko tudi drugačna.
In addition to the variety of models of composition of management bodies, in some countries there also exists a multiplicity of councils with complementary duties.
Poleg različnih modelov sestave organov upravljanja šole so v nekaterih državah tudi druga telesa.
This developing tendency leads to an increased complexity in school governance.
Najrazličnejši sveti pogosto dopolnjujejo sistem odločanja na ravni šole.
This is the case in Portugal where joint powers are exercised between the director of the Executive Council (management body composed of members of school staff) and the president of the School Assembly (open to external representatives).
Kompleksnost upravljanja šol se tako povečuje. Na Portugalskem denimo si moč upravljanja delita direktor izvršnega sveta (vodstveni organ, ki ga sestavljajo člani šolskega osebja) in predsednik zbora šole (v katerem so tudi zunanji predstavniki).
Such bi-polarity is found between the management body and the governing body in the Flemish Community of Belgium.
Podobno bipolarnost je mogoče opaziti tudi med vodstvenim in upravnim organom v flamski skupnosti v Belgiji.
Similarly, the work of school bodies is increasingly accompanied by that of teachers’ councils whose role is to plan teaching activities within the school. This occurs in Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and, more recently, France (since 2005 at ISCED 2).
Pri delovanju organov šole vse bolj sodelujejo še učiteljski zbori, katerih naloga je sicer načrtovanje pedagoških dejavnosti v šoli, kar se dogaja v Italiji, Latviji, Litvi, Romuniji in od nedavnega tudi v Franciji (od 2005 na nižjih sekundarnih šolah).
CHAPTER 3: SCHOOL AUTONOMY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
TRETJE POGLAVJE: ŠOLSKA AVTONOMIJA IN ODGOVORNOST
Taking account of the myriad of schools of thought at work across the different experiences in school autonomy, the principle of accountability was not, initially, at the centre of thinking in all countries.
Če pogledamo teoretična izhodišča, na podlagi katerih so države vsaka po svoje spodbujale šolsko avtonomijo, vidimo, da med njimi vsaj na začetku ni načela javne in profesionalne odgovornosti šole.
However, from the middle of the 1990s this concept became increasingly important and assumed different forms in different countries.
Načelo odgovornosti šole so države začele privzemati pozneje in ga različno vgrajevale v svoja sistemska prizadevanja.
These new models of accountability usually represent an adjustment of evaluation instruments that were either already in place (school inspectorates, for example) or were developed to meet broader objectives, such as standardized assessment of pupil attainment (section 3.1).
Zaradi uresničevanje načela odgovornosti šol so začele države prilagajati nekatere že uveljavljene sistemske mehanizme. Zato so bodisi preoblikovale že obstoječe institucije, kot so šolski inšpektorati, ali pa so nadgradile sisteme preverjanja in ocenjevanja znanja ter razvile standardizirana preverjanja učnih dosežkov učencev (razdelek 3.1).
In some countries, however, new tools dedicated to formally evaluating the responsibilities devolved to schools are being developed (section 3.2).
Ponekod so razvili povsem nove mehanizme, posebej namenjene spremljanju in vrednotenju odgovornosti šol, ki so jim bile pred tem podeljene (razdelek 3.2).
Models of school accountability: diversity and constraints
Modeli ugotavljanja, kako šole izpolnjujejo odgovornost: raznolikost in problemi
As the forms of autonomy at school level and general organisational policies varied between countries, a multiplicity of models for school accountability has resulted.
Politike organizacije šol in v njih uveljavljena avtonomija se med državami razlikujejo. Ne glede na razlike v pristopih in izvedbi pa se je razvila vrsta organizacijskih modelov s skupnimi značilnostmi.
Three main types of organisation can be distinguished at present.
Danes razlikujemo tri glavne modele ugotavljanja, kako šole izpolnjujejo odgovornost.
In the first scenario – the majority of countries – the bodies traditionally responsible for evaluating people involved in education – teachers in particular – were given this new evaluating function.
V prvi skupini modelov, značilnih za večino držav, so novo funkcijo vrednotenja odgovornosti šole prevzela telesa, ki so bila tradicionalno zadolžena za vrednotenje dela pedagoških delavcev, še zlasti učiteljev.
In the majority of European countries, it is the higher authorities with responsibility for education, most frequently through the inspectorates, which became responsible for evaluating schools in the context of autonomy.
V večini evropskih držav so bile za to zadolžene višje oblasti, odgovorne za vzgojo in izobraževanje, ki so najpogosteje to svojo zadolžitev izvajale s šolskimi inšpektorati, pozneje pa so postale odgovorne tudi za evalvacijo šol v kontekstu svoje avtonomije.
Inspection systems may be centralised or devolved.
Sistem nadzora je lahko centraliziran ali dekoncentriran.
In the Czech Republic, the inspection body charged with evaluating schools saw its powers strengthened.
Na Češkem denimo so evalvacijo šol naložili državnemu inšpekcijskemu organu, ki je s tem utrdil svojo moč.
Initially it was only responsible for ensuring that financial rules were followed but the new curriculum reforms, which come into force in 2007/08, will widen its scope to cover teaching matters.
Do takrat je bil zadolžen za zagotavljanje spoštovanja finančnih pravil v šolah, z novimi kurikularnimi spremembami, ki so se uveljavile v šolskem letu 2007/08, pa se bodo njegova pooblastila razširila tudi na pedagoškostrokovno delo.
In Germany, Spain and Austria, schools are evaluated through inspections attached to the higher authorities with responsibility for education – respectively the Länder and the Autonomous Communities.
V Nemčiji, Španiji in Avstriji vodijo evalvacijo šol inšpektorji, ki so del strukture višjih šolskih oblasti (deželnih v Nemčiji in pokrajinskih v Španiji).
In the United Kingdom (England), it is the duty of the powerful inspection body OFSTED – whose powers have grown and whose independence in relation to the ministry has been strengthened – to evaluate schools.
V Združenem kraljestvu (Anglija) je evalvacija šol dolžnost močnega inšpekcijskega organa OFSTED – njegova pooblastila so se zadnje čase precej razširila, tudi v odnosu do ministrstva pa bodo od zdaj bolj neodvisni.
OFSTED reports are available to the wider public on the Internet.
Poročila OFSTED-a so javno dostopna na njegovih spletnih straneh.
The Netherlands have a similar system even though from 2007, schools which are not considered at risk will no longer be systematically monitored through inspections.
Nizozemska ima podoben sistem, vendar pa stalnega sistematičnega inšpekcijskega nadzora od leta 2007 ne bo več v tistih šolah, ki do zdaj niso imele težav z uspešnostjo učencev.
Bulgaria, Lithuania, Portugal and the United Kingdom (Scotland) also fall into this category.
Tudi Bolgarija, Litva, Portugalska in Združeno kraljestvo (Škotska) spadajo v to kategorijo držav.
In addition, in some of these countries, inspections are coupled with local authority evaluations such as the Czech Republic, Lithuania and the United Kingdom (England).
V nekaterih od teh držav, na Češkem, v Litvi in v Združenem kraljestvu (Anglija), združujejo inšpekcijski nadzor nad šolami z evalvacijo delovanja lokalnih šolskih oblasti.
Since the end of the 1990s, in many of the countries which form part of the first scenario, the criteria used for the evaluation of schools has been subject to standardisation.
Po koncu devetdesetih let so mnoge države iz prve skupine standardizirale merila za evalvacijo šol.
In Spain, some of the Autonomous Communities, such as Andalusia, Catalonia and Castile-La-Mancha, follow this model.
V Španiji uporabljajo standardizirane postopke nekatere avtonomne skupnosti, kot so Andaluzija, Katalonija in Castile-La-Mancha.
In 2004/05, Lithuania also imposed common criteria for internal and external evaluations.
Leta 2004/05 je Litva vpeljala skupna merila za interno in eksterno evalvacijo.
Similarly, under the devolved inspection system in operation in Poland a uniform list of criteria has also been used since 2004/05.
Po dekoncentraciji inšpekcijskega sistema leta 2004/05 tudi na Poljskem uporabljajo enoten seznam meril.
In Portugal, since 1999, the inspection system has had in place a model of ‘integrated evaluation’ which covers a range of areas (organisation and management of the school, school climate, pupil achievement, etc.).
Na Portugalskem deluje inšpekcijski sistem po modelu tako imenovane integrirane evalvacije, ki obsega organizacijo in vodenje šol, šolsko kulturo in vzdušje, uspešnost učencev ter druga področja.
Standardisation of evaluation criteria is intended to, amongst other things, reveal the value added by schools beyond the simple raw academic results.
Standardizacija evalvacijskih meril naj bi med drugim omogočila ugotavljanje ne le golih šolskih rezultatov, temveč kolikšno dodano vrednosti lahko šole
Policies and Measures
Politikain ukrepi razvijejo.
Inspection Framework, drawn up by OFSTED, the inspectorate.
V Združenem kraljestvu (Anglija) se vse šolske inšpekcije izvajajo na podlagi inšpekcijskih smernic, ki jih je pripravil osrednji inšpektorat OFSTED.
This sets out specific requirements for evaluating and reporting on the work of the school and the standards achieved by pupils and lists the criteria which form the basis for arriving at inspection judgments.
Smernice določajo, kaj naj se vrednoti, kako naj se poroča o dejavnostih šole in standardih, ki jih dosegajo učenci, ter naštevajo merila, po katerih mora inšpektor opraviti evalvacijo in napisati evalvacijsko poročilo. Škotska je vpeljala enak režim.
This trend towards standardisation seems to equate to a reinforcement of school accountability and, at the same time, increased professionalisation of the evaluation service.
Kaže, da standardizacija evalvacijskih meril vpliva na večjo odgovornost šol in hkrati zvišuje profesionalnost evalvacijskih postopkov.
In the second group of countries, schools are accountable mainly to the local authorities – local councils or ‘organising bodies’ which manage them.
V drugi skupini so države, kjer so šole odgovorne predvsem lokalnim oblastem – občinam ali organizacijskim organom, ki šole upravljajo.
This is the case in some Nordic countries as well as Belgium and Hungary.
V tej skupini so nekatere skandinavske države, Belgija in Madžarska.
Within this model, local education authorities have kept a pivotal role in the evaluation process but, since the middle of the 1990s, there has been the growth of a national structure for school accountability which is involved in the development of national standards and student attainment standardized tests.
Značilno za ta model je, da imajo pri evalvaciji šol lokalni šolski organi odločilno vlogo. Ne glede na to pa se je od sredine devetdesetih let povečal tudi vzporeden nadzor države, ki se kaže kot predpisovanje nacionalnih standardov znanja in vpeljevanje standardiziranih preverjanj učnih dosežkov učencev.
In Denmark, local authorities remain central but the Danish Evaluation Institute, set up in 1999, now has a duty to carry out national evaluations based on samples of schools.
Na Danskem imajo lokalne oblasti še vedno najpomembnejšo vlogo, kljub temu pa leta 1999 ustanovljen inštitut za evalvacijo šol izvaja vsakoletne vzorčne evalvacije.
Hungary also rounds off the inspections carried out by local authorities with a new system of evaluating schools through the development of standardised tests.
Tudi Madžarska dopolnjuje delo lokalnih inšpekcij z novim sistemom nacionalnega preverjanja znanja s standardiziranimi preizkusi.
Optional in 2001, this new evaluation system became compulsory for all schools in 2006.
Leta 2001 so bila nacionalna preverjanja znanja učencev še neobvezna, leta 2006 pa so postala obvezna za vse šole.
From 2008, all local authorities will have to use it when monitoring schools in their charge.
Od leta 2008 ga bodo morale izvajati vse lokalne oblasti, ki nadzorujejo šole na svojem območju.
Some countries have remained at the periphery of this trend for school evaluation.
Nekatere države se še niso pridružile splošni usmeritvi organiziranja evalvacijskih sistemov.
In Italy for example schools are not accountable to a specific body (except for twice yearly visits from an auditor for administrative and accountancy purposes) but they are strongly encouraged to perform self-evaluations.
V Italiji na primer šolam ni treba poročati nobenemu nadzornemu organu (razen v primeru obiska revizorja, ki dvakrat letno preverja poslovne in knjigovodske zadeve), vendar pa šolam priporočajo, da izvajajo samoevalvacije.
The development of a standardised evaluation system under the auspices of the National Institute for the Evaluation of Education, Training and Teaching (INVALSI), is intended to provide national benchmarks for schools.
Načrtujejo, da naj bi se sistem evalvacije šol in vrednotenja dosežkov glede na želene cilje (benchmarking) izvajal pod okriljem nacionalnega inštituta za evalvacijo izobraževanja, usposabljanja in poučevanja (INVALSI), ki ga šele ustanavljajo.
From 2009/10, INVALSI will be responsible for evaluating the value added by schools through monitoring performance when pupils start school and when they leave.
Od šolskega leta 2009/10 bo INVALSI spremljal, kako in koliko znanja in spretnosti pridobijo učenci od začetka šolanja do dokončanja (kolikšna je v tem procesu dodana vrednost).
Contextual information and the socio-economic background of pupils will be taken into account.
Pri tem bodo upoštevali tudi socialnoekonomski položaj učenca in posebnosti okoliščin, v katerih se uči.
Similarly, in Bulgaria, schools are not subjected to specific evaluation procedures.
Podobno tudi v Bolgariji šole še niso vključene v sistematične evalvacijske preglede.
France holds a position in-between: at ISCED level 1, as schools have very limited autonomy evaluation as such has not been developed; at ISCED level 2 evaluation procedures are currently being developed and will involve a number of agencies whose roles are not, as yet, well-defined.
Francija je nekje vmes: primarne šole imajo zelo malo avtonomije, zato evalvacije tam niso razvite, nižje sekundarne šole pa razvijajo evalvacijske postopke, pri katerih naj bi sodelovale mnoge strokovne institucije, katerih vloga zaenkrat še ni natančno opredeljena.
These will include local and national inspectorates, as well as devolved regional administrative bodies (Rectorat des Académies).
Znano je že, da bodo sodelovali lokalni in nacionalni inšpektorati ter decentralizirani regionalni upravni organi (Rectorat des Académies).
Overall, countries remaining outside the main evaluation trends are becoming increasingly rare.
Lahko rečemo, da je v Evropi vse manj držav, ki evalvacijskim usmeritvam ne sledijo.
Generally, in addition to the three groups of countries where the boundaries are continually shifting, a trend is developing towards multi-accountability.
Ugotavljamo, da se zaradi hitrega razvoja evalvacijskih sistemov razvrstitev držav na omenjene tri skupine nenehno spreminja, vse bolj pa se povečuje tudi odgovornost šol.
In more and more countries schools are having to account to a range of bodies (education ministries, local councils, and also to the wider community (parents, external partners).
Čedalje več je šolskih sistemov, kjer so šole odgovorne več ravnem (ministrstvom za šolstvo, občinam, pa tudi širši skupnosti – staršem, zunanjim partnerjem).
The situation in the United Kingdom (England) typifies the tendency for freedoms to be accompanied by a complex network of accountabilities.
Položaj šol v Združenem kraljestvu (Anglija) najbolje ponazarja naslednja ugotovitev: po eni strani težnja po večji svobodi šol, ki jo po drugi strani spremlja vse bolj zapletena mreža odgovornosti.
Schools in England are accountable to the central level through OFSTED inspections, to their local authority and to a governing body which includes representatives of key stakeholders such as parents, staff and representatives of the local community.
Šole v Angliji odgovarjajo državni inšpekciji OFSTED, lokalnim šolskim oblastem in svojim organom upravljanja, v katerih pa sodelujejo predstavniki vseh udeležencev, starši, osebje in predstavniki lokalne skupnosti.
Local authorities and the Secretary of State have powers of intervention if the school’s performance becomes a cause for concern.
Lokalne šolske oblasti in minister imajo predpisovalno moč, in če šole ne dosegajo pričakovanih rezultatov, lahko posežejo vmes.
There is also a market-driven accountability system, in which parents are provided with a wealth of information on school performance (on-line OFSTED reports, and schools’ test results, etc.) to inform their choice of a school for their child.
Določen vidik odgovornosti šol spodbuja tudi trg, saj imajo starši dostop do podatkov o rezultatih šole (poročila OFSTED so objavljena na spletnih straneh, prav tako rezultati preverjanj za posamezno šolo ipd.).
More recently, the burden placed on schools by multiple
Starši lažje izbirajo med šolami, ker so informirani o njihovi kakovosti.
Chapter 3: School Autonomy and Accountability accountabilities has been recognised.
Tretje poglavje: Šolska avtonomijain odgovornost
The Government’s ‘New Relationship with Schools’ programme aims to reduce the bureaucracy associated with these requirements.
Nov odnos do šol zmanjšati birokracijo, povezano s poročanjem šol več ravnem.
Scotland has followed this same trend towards multi-accountability.
Tudi na Škotskem se pritisk na šole povečuje, saj se množijo ravni in organi, ki jim mora šola poročati o svojem delovanju.
A similar situation also occurs in the Netherlands.
Podobno je na Nizozemskem.
While extensive deregulation has given schools much independence, they now find themselves at the centre of an accountability network.
Šole, ki so po deregulaciji sistema postale precej samostojne, so se zdaj znašle v primežu odgovornosti, ki jo preverja vse več ravni.
Generally, school accountability to families developed from the middle of the 1990s with the publication of results in a growing number of countries.
Z javnim objavljanjem rezultatov preverjanja znanja se je od sredine devetdesetih let začela povečevati odgovornost šol do učencev in staršev v vseh tistih državah, kjer to počnejo.
This occurred in the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden.
To se je zgodilo na Češkem, Poljskem, Portugalskem in Švedskem.
Publication took a different form in different countries – on-line inspection reports, reports of local authorities, and outcomes of standardised evaluations.
Javno objavljanje rezultatov se je pojavilo v različnih državah v različnih oblikah, bodisi kot inšpekcijska poročila na spletu, poročila lokalnih oblasti bodisi kot rezultati standardiziranega preverjanja znanja.
Figure 3.1: Publication of findings from the external evaluation of individual schools, compulsory general education, 2006/07
Slika 3.1: Objava rezultatov eksterne evalvacije po posameznih šolah, obvezno splošno izobraževanje, 2006/07
Routine publication of findings for individual schools
Sistematično objavljanje rezultatov po posameznih šolah
No routine publication of findings for individual schools
Ni sistematičnega objavljanja rezultatov po posameznih šolah.
Local autonomy
Lokalna avtonomija
Belgium (BEde): External evaluation was introduced on a trial basis in 2007 and will become widespread from 2008.
Belgija (BE de): Eksterno evalvacijo so poskusno vpeljali leta 2007, leta 2008 pa bo postala splošno razširjena.
Belgium (BE nl) and Slovakia: The results are not published but may be consulted on request.
Belgija (BE nl) in Slovaška: Rezultatov ne objavljajo, je pa mogoče dobiti vpogled.
Czech Republic, Slovakia and United Kingdom: The Figure relates solely to external evaluation carried out at central level.
Češka, Slovaška in Združeno kraljestvo: Informacija se nanaša izključno na eksterno evalvacijo, ki se izvaja na ravni države.
There are no central regulations on publication of the findings of evaluation carried out by the local authorities.
Objavljanje ugotovitev evalvacij, ki jih izvajajo lokalne oblasti, ni predpisano.
The situation may vary.
Stanje je med primeri lahko različno.
Latvia: The results of the inspection in 2003, to check that schools functioned in compliance with the operational standards required to obtain the status of gymnasium, were the subject of a publication.
Latvija: Objavljeni so bili rezultati inšpekcijskih pregledov (iz leta 2003) šol, ki so želele pridobiti status nižjih gimnazij.
Lithuania: The findings of evaluation by the inspectorate are published solely when schools fail to comply with the regulations applicable to them.
Litva: Evalvacijske ugotovitve inšpektorata se objavijo, samo kadar šole ne upoštevajo predpisov.
External evaluation of individual secondary schools introduced in 2004/05 are not published.
Rezultati eksterne evalvacije posameznih sekundarnih šol, vpeljane leta 2004/05, niso bili objavljeni.
Poland: Since 2002, the results of external standardized exams and tests for each school have been published on the ministry website.
Poljska: Od leta 2002 se na spletnih straneh ministrstva objavljajo rezultati eksternih standardiziranih izpitov in preverjanja učencev po šolah, vendar se to ne šteje za izčrpno poročilo o eksterni evalvaciji šol.
Finland: Education providers (mostly municipalities) are responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of their provision and have to participate in external evaluations.
Finska: Organizatorji izobraževanja (v glavnem občine) so odgovorni za evalvacijo učinkovitosti svoje ponudbe in morajo sodelovati v eksternih evalvacijah.
In the majority of countries, two or occasionally more distinct approaches to the external evaluation of individual schools exist depending on who is responsible for evaluation.
V večini držav sta najmanj dva pristopa, ponekod pa je celo več različnih pristopov k eksterni evalvaciji šol glede na to, kdo je odgovoren za evalvacijo.