Policy and Quality
In this SIG, we investigate how policy, quality assurance, and informed decision-making take shape in education. We start from an academic perspective with a policy-oriented and practice-relevant approach. Central to this is the question of which education professionals and (policy) systems we need today and tomorrow to guarantee high-quality education. This broad starting point is reflected in three more specific research lines.
Our research on school and education policy focuses on policy and change processes, leadership, and professional development in education. We examine how educational settings deal with the tension between development and accountability, and address efficiency and effectiveness issues, such as the contribution of school characteristics to education for sustainable development (ESD). In addition, we study school culture in a broad sense, including the role of academic optimism, the values of school leaders and teachers, and academic futility among students. These perspectives help to understand school processes and develop insights for shaping development and change trajectories.
Within the theme of quality assurance, we study the working mechanisms of educational inspection, school self-evaluation, and other forms of quality assurance. This becomes tangible in the development of survey and self-evaluation instruments (such as Educheck) and policy evaluation research on inspections or quality assurance in school boards. We examine how schools evolve toward a quality culture, with a balance between systems and instruments on the one hand, and professional dialogue and collective sense-making on the other.
At the intersection of policy and quality assurance lies informed decision-making. Here, we investigate how policymakers, school leaders, and teachers use information to strengthen policy and practice and to change education effectively and sustainably. Information and decision-making literacy are crucial in this regard. We study how information and feedback (such as from Flemish assessments) are interpreted and used, and how perceived relevance, usability, and presentation formats of these sources influence this. We work toward evidence-rich environments in which diverse sources of evidence strengthen professional autonomy and ownership.
The SIG uses quantitative and qualitative methods and, where possible, places findings in an international comparative perspective. In doing so, we aim to provide well-founded insights that are relevant for various stakeholders in the educational field.
Members
Amber Hoefkens: Central tests– User research – Data visualization – Data literacy
​Evelyn Goffin: Data literacy – Data use – Quality assurance – Educational effectiveness – Sensemaking
Antje Kenis: Differentiation and STEM in primary education – (International large-scale) evaluation
​Stijn Kerkhofs: Sense of Academic Futility – (In)equality of educational opportunities – School culture
Isabel Laenen: School self-evaluation – Educational effectiveness – Central tests
​Ruud Lelieur: Academic optimism (Trust – Efficacy – Academic emphasis) – Fair educational opportunities – School effectiveness
​Glen Molenberghs: Central tests – User research – Effects monitoring
​Liesje Vanhaecke: Graph comprehension – Data literacy – Data‑based instructional decision‑making – Cognitive processing – Teacher learning – Sustainability education – Team reflexivity
​Jan Vanhoof: Quality assurance – School self‑evaluation – Informed policy‑making – School leadership – Change management
​Kristin Vanlommel: Organising change – Evidence‑informed practice – Quality development – Professional capital
​Dries Verhelst: Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) – Assessment and evaluation