The main differences between the 2021 Framework and the 2017 Framework

The Framework is governing body, school and system-oriented and is based on proportionality and customization. Boards and internal supervision (the joint legal authority) bear the responsibility for the quality of education. That is why we focus our supervision on their work. We conduct four-yearly inspections of boards, risk based inspections of schools and inspections of potentially Good schools. We do that proportionally; supervision is more intensive where necessary and less extensive when the governing body is well in control, and is also focused on the vision and ambitions of the board itself.

Framework for governing bodies

In the evaluation framework for boards you will find specific governance standards: the quality area ‘Governance, Quality Assurance and Ambitions’ (BKA) and the requirements we set from the legislation.

Framework for schools

In the evaluation framework for schools you will find the standards specifically for schools. The new Citizenship Act has been integrated into these standards and also special education is more explicitly mentioned. The areas in which sectors have to deal with new legislation and regulations, have also been incorporated into the standards.

New framework for system quality

In the framework for system quality, we look at the realization of the core functions of the Dutch education system, including the socializing function of education. It provides a frame of reference and offers the opportunity to have an open discussion about the state of affairs in education.

In the framework we have described in detail how we carry out system supervision in practice: for example by carrying out thematic reviews, having open discussions with boards about the core functions and their own ambitions and putting certain issues on the agenda on system level. In this way, we link what is happening regarding the core functions of education on different levels (schools, boards, system wide) more closely to each other.

We make a difference in supervision between assuring basic quality and fostering above average quality of education. In the first case (assuring quality), we assess whether schools and boards meet the legal requirements, in the latter (fostering quality) we focus on the ambitions that governing bodies and schools have formulated for their pupils and students.

Because the recent evaluations showed that the difference could be made clearer, in the 2021 Framework we have described the legal requirements for each standard in detail. Apart from that, we no longer use examples for ‘possible ambitions’. In this way, we try to emphasize the open interpretation of responsibility for ambitions by boards and schools.

We have integrated the standards on financial management and management of quality assurance into 3 management standards. We have also adapted the structure to the cyclical nature of management by the board. In this way we meet the recommendations that resulted from the evaluations and consultations we held to achieve greater unity between financial supervision and quality supervision.

Due to the decision of the government we no longer reward individual schools (public and private) that show exceptionally good quality with the overall Good judgement (since 1 August 2023). The government reasoned that the judgement ‘Good’ creates competition between schools; thus fueling inequality. As from September 2023 individual schools can therefore only receive the following overall judgements: Adequate, Inadequate and Very weak. The Good judgement is still applied on the standards, so schools that show exceptionally good quality on a certain area/standard (for instance quality assurance or school climate), receive a Good judgement on this standard. Additionally the overall judgement ‘Good’  still applies for governing bodies.

Improving basic skills has long been a priority in our supervision. However, from August 1st 2023, we put extra emphasis on it by adding a new standard ‘Basic skills’ in the supervision framework. In the new basic skills standard we look at the curriculum for Dutch literacy, numeracy and citizenship. It is about making conscious choices in planning and implementing the curriculum on the basic skills. The new standard assures our supervision checks whether or not we see this reflected in the classroom. Teachers are to be aware of and able to account for the goals they are working on.

From August 1 2021, there are new legal requirements for promoting citizenship in primary, secondary and special education. We have incorporated these requirements into the 2021 Framework.

The law prescribes that schools work in a targeted, coherent and recognizable way to promote the basic values of the democratic constitutional state and the associated social competences. A school climate that matches the promotion of basic values is also considered to be important. Schools have the freedom to organize their citizenship education in a way that suits their own philosophy, ideas about learning and the student population of their school.

The inspectorate assesses whether schools meet the legal requirements and whether the board has insight into the quality of citizenship education and improves it if necessary. In doing so, the inspectorate takes into account the time needed to comply with the revised legal requirements. The inspectorate will, however, always intervene if schools do not promote citizenship at all, or if education conflicts with basic values.

Proportionality in supervision means that we aim to collect as much information as possible about risks we detect. Signals and/or complaints about education that we receive are therefore given a prominent place in our working method and in the risk analysis that we make of schools each year. In practice, during board meetings we will discuss how signals and complaints about education are being dealt with.

If there are bottlenecks or risks in quality, we align with what the board is doing or has already done to remedy them. We ask the board to explain which measures have been taken and why. In the event of risks that arise, we can ask the board to partly investigate the risks themselves and account for them. Depending on the nature of the risks and signals, we may also decide to conduct our own research at a school.

The reports that we make of the four-yearly surveys have been adjusted. The reports focus on integrated governance standards and we pay attention to the ambitions of boards in relation to the qualification, allocation and socializing function, focused on their specific school context. The reports no longer contain partial reports of verification activities at schools, we only describe our finding on school level, to substantiate our judgements on governing body level.
Furthermore we have separated school level reports (risk based or potentially Good schools) from the governing body report.

The Assessment Frameworks are adjusted every year to incorporate new legislation. In addition, we periodically review the frameworks. In 2017 we amended the principles of supervision. From then on, supervision became board-oriented. We then agreed that we would evaluate the functioning of the new framework.

At this point, we have evaluated supervision in the educational field, in society and internally within our own inspectorate. We also asked Radboud University to conduct an evaluation study. Based on these evaluations, we revised the framework.

From 1 August 2021 the Inspectorate of Education started working with the revised frameworks in primary education, (secondary) special education, secondary education and secondary vocational education.