Supervision of the level of governing bodies

 All four-yearly inspections of a governing body and its schools start with an expert analysis of the information available to the Inspectorate about the governing body and the relevant schools.We start off with analyzing the data in our performance monitor and our system monitor (see below). We then look into documents, complaints, former inspections, internet, etc. The result of this analysis is used for costumizing the starting conversation and the inspection plan.

During the initial meeting, we ask the governing body representatives to tell us about their governance, quality assurance and ambitions. We then compare the presentation to the results of our own expert analysis. These activities provide us with a preliminary picture of governance, quality assurance and ambition. We also address the role of the governing body in the system (see system level supervision).

We then use the result of the expert analysis and the initial meeting to formulate an inspection plan in which we describe our activities in the various phases of the inspection, both at governance level and at the school level. The plan specifies which schools we will inspect for verification purposes (verification activities).

In the preparatory phase, we have already formed a preliminary picture of the governance, quality assurance and ambition. We now focus on these aspects in practice. What role  do these play in certain system issues? Do they serve to guarantee the quality and continuity of education? Does the quality assurance system encourage continued improvement? What are the ambitions of the governing body and the schools? To answer these questions we speak with a number of stakeholders, such as quality assurance officers, school principals or a financial controller.

The system of checks and balances is investigated in discussions with the internal supervision and participation council. We assess if internal supervision is well positioned and independent, and if participation councils are well organized.
The financial inspector checks legality (by looking into the accountant report), continuity (by checking key figures such as solvency and liquidity) and expediency (together with the lead inspector checking if the funding the governing body receives is spent efficiently and effectively).

 See inspection of financial management

We choose a number of policy goals / topics (from strategic policy plans or school plans and from information we received during the starting conversation).

The inspectorate investigates the management and control cycles around these policy goals / topics in a sample of schools through verification activities. These inspections can vary in form. For example visiting some lessons to verify or speaking with teachers.

In this way the impact of the management policy is tested in reality.

After the inspection the Inspectorate prepares a draft report containing the results of the entire inspection. If we have also carried out school  inspections, we make separate reports on school level for these schools.

We discuss the draft report during the final conversation with the governing body. We distinguish between improvements that are required to bring the governing body and schools up to standard (based on law), and recommended improvements (above basic quality). We ask the governing body to put in writing what they intend to do with the results of the inspection. We publish this reaction in the report. Following the discussion, we correct any factual inaccuracies and amend the report as necessary. The final report also specifies the follow-up supervision and the governing body’s role in this process. The report is a public document and will be published on our website, as well as the overall judgement of the governing body.

We use the results of the four-yearly inspection to specify the structure of the follow-up inspection of the governing body and the schools. Our judgements are the determining factor for the severity of the follow-up supervision. We will intensify our follow-up supervision if the governing body fails to demonstrate sufficient improvement.