Incorporating Library Provision In School Self Evaluation Educational Review 1

Incorporating library provision in school self-evaluation - Educational Review 08/10/14 22:05

Incorporating library provision in
school self-evaluation
Author: Sarah McNicol a
Affiliation: a University of Central England, Birmingham, UK

DOI: 10.1080/0013191042000201190
Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year
Published in: Educational Review, Volume 56, Issue 3
November 2004 , pages 287 - 296

Abstract
Traditionally, school libraries have been evaluated primarily
in terms of library management; the impact they have on
teaching and learning has rarely been a focus. For this reason, they have often been
omitted from whole school self-evaluation. Self-evaluation can help schools to prepare for
inspection, but more importantly to identify strengths and weaknesses and help schools to
improve their library provision through in-depth evaluation of specific areas. This article
describes a project undertaken by the Centre for Information Research (CIRT) at the
University of Central England (UCE) to develop a model for the self-evaluation of school
libraries which focused on teaching and learning outcomes. The approach advocated links
library activities to whole school issues and relates library evaluation to the overall aims of
the school.

Introduction
It is widely acknowledged that school libraries can make a valuable contribution to teaching and learning. However, in
the past, there has been little attempt to develop a consistent way of providing evidence to support this belief. There is
clearly a need for school libraries to be able to demonstrate the contribution that their services can make to the school
curriculum and lifelong learning to teachers, governors, Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspectors, parents,
funders, pupils and other stakeholders. Some areas the library is likely to contribute most noticeably to include: meeting
the objectives of the National Literacy Strategy and Key Stage 3 Strategy; supporting subject studies; reading for
pleasure; independent learning; and inclusion.

It was in the light of this concern that the School Libraries Working Group (SLWG), managed by the Department for
Education and Skills (DfES), commissioned the Centre for Information Research (CIRT) at the University of Central
England (UCE) to develop models for the self-evaluation of school libraries. The project aimed to produce draft models
for primary and secondary school libraries, along with guidelines for their use. These were to be focused on learning
and teaching outcomes and accessible to the broad range of staff who manage libraries in schools in England. By
focusing on learning and teaching outcomes, the intention was to link library activities to whole school issues and to
relate library evaluation to the aims of the school.

Self-evaluation in schools
The importance of school self-evaluation has been stressed by numerous commentators. For example, MacBeath et al.
claimed, 'it is an intrinsic feature of effective schools and professional practice … an intrinsic and necessary component
http://www.informaworld.com.eresources.shef.ac.uk/smpp/section?content=a713619404&fulltext=713240928 Página 1 de 8


claimed, 'it is an intrinsic feature of effective schools and professional practice … an intrinsic and necessary component
of school improvement' (2000, p. 92). It is essential that, as an integral part of the school, the library is part of any
whole school evaluation. Ericson outlined a number of reasons why self-evaluation was important:

Self-awareness: 'the desirability that a school should know and understand itself through reflection and thus be
in a better position to prioritise its requirements and direct its energies towards desired goals'.
All that needs to be evaluated in schools cannot be achieved through external evaluators alone.
Schools need to be accountable and to demonstrate that they are doing a professional job and continually
improving.
Evaluation should be 'an obvious and integral' part of school improvement.
Evaluation allows individuals to learn about their own practice and to gain greater understanding to the
evaluation process in general. (Ericson, 1992, pp. 107-108)

The importance of, and approach to, school evaluation in England has changed somewhat over the last two decades.
According to Norris (1990), changes in power and control within the education system in the 1980s meant a shift from
evaluation for and by the teacher to evaluation on or of the teacher. At the same time, there was a change of emphasis
from formative to summative evaluation; in addition, the audience for evaluation came increasingly to be seen as the
executive decision-makers rather than classroom-based teachers.

This trend continued and Rudd and Davies have argued that by the mid 1990s when Ofsted began to carry out school
visits, 'external inspection was seen as the main driving force in terms of the evaluation of school and pupil
performance' (Rudd & Davies, 2000). However, more recently, there have been moves towards greater self-evaluation
and by 1999, Saunders had identified an observable change as 'schools' own capacity and responsibility for reflection
and evaluation' had moved to the forefront of policy (Saunders, 1999, p. 414).

As MacBeath et al. (2000) have pointed out, self-evaluation has a different rationale to external evaluation as its
primary impulse is development rather than accountability. It is a mechanism through which schools can be empowered
and can monitor their own progress.

Stenhouse has argued:

External and internal evaluators are equally important: the former provide
expertise and objectivity, and the latter familiarity and understanding. The two
roles are distinct yet complementary and both are necessary for effective
evaluation. (Stenhouse, 1975, p. 83)

While most schools now carry out some form of self-evaluation, the nature and extent of this varies considerably. The
Effective School Self Evaluation (ESSE) project found that, while 60% of primary and 90% of secondary schools carry
out self-evaluation, only one-quarter perform well regarding self-evaluation (Standing International Conference of
Inspectorates, 2001).

School library evaluation
As Williams et al. (2002) found, traditionally, school libraries have been evaluated primarily in terms of library
management; the impact they have on teaching and learning has rarely been a focus. This project aimed to go some
way towards redressing the balance.

From the results of a survey conducted in the early stages of the project, it was clear that there is wide variation in
approaches to self-evaluation of school libraries in England. This was true even among Beacon schools with expertise
in self-assessment; while some had clearly given a great deal of consideration to the evaluation of the library, others
acknowledged that there was still much to be done in this area. The responses of the headteachers highlight the
importance of considering library self-evaluation as an integral part of whole school self-evaluation and also of using
the findings to inform future planning to ensure that the library has maximum impact on teaching and learning.

It is important that any structure for the self-evaluation of the library is linked to whole school evaluation processes in
order to secure the support of teaching staff, managers and other stakeholders. It should therefore use language,


order to secure the support of teaching staff, managers and other stakeholders. It should therefore use language,
structure and terms which are familiar to teachers and other educators in order to ensure that the audience is receptive
to, and clearly understands, the findings of library self-evaluation.

The research and development process
The first stage of the research carried out to inform the development of the school library self-evaluation models
consisted of a short literature search and review to identify research reports and other relevant documentation relating
to the current provision and standards of school libraries in England and their impact on teaching, learning and
attainment, for example, Markless and Streatfield (2000). It was hoped that these would be used to help to identify
the types of measures which would be most appropriate for a self-evaluation tool.

The research team proposed to draw on work done in Scotland, where two school library evaluation models: 'Taking a
Closer Look at the School Library Resource Centre' and 'Best Value Quantitative Indicators' had recently been
developed. In order to discover how successfully the Scottish models have worked in practice, the research team
contacted members of the working groups to discuss any issues which they had encountered and to draw on their
experiences in the drafting of the English models and guidelines. Consultation also took place with library and
education organizations such as the School Library Association (SLA), Association of Senior Children's and Education
Librarians (ASCEL), Ofsted and the DfES. To broaden out the consultation process, a questionnaire was devised
asking any teachers and librarians who wished to comment for their views about a possible model and in particular, for
details of any evaluation activities currently being carried out in school libraries. In order to obtain a senior management
perspective, a shortened version of this questionnaire was sent to headteachers at a sample of Beacon schools with
expertise in self-assessment. In total, 38 questionnaires were returned across the three groups.

The research team believed that it was crucial to involve practitioners at every stage to ensure that the models
developed were practical tools that catered effectively for the needs of those working in schools. A small group of
practitioners from the local area was therefore formed to comment on drafts of the model at regular intervals. To
involve practitioners from a wider geographical area, two small workshops of teachers and librarians were hosted by
CIRT. Members of the SLWG were also actively involved and remained in regular contact with the research team
throughout the project. In addition, the research team worked directly with several school library services (SLSs) which
had already done work in this area.

Existing library evaluation models
Many of the existing models of school library self-evaluation were developed in the US. The majority of these are based
around the American Association of School Librarians' Information Power structure and the most common approach is
to evaluate the library in terms of:

the role of the library media specialist;
the library media programme (goals, budget, planning);
the collection (range, selection procedures, organization, accessibility, etc.);
library personnel;
facilities (accommodation and access).

A number of states have developed their own evaluation methods based, to a greater or lesser extent, around these
themes. These provided a useful starting point for the research team, particularly in terms of the overall structure of a
possible self-evaluation model and the amount of support provided to assist library staff in its implementation. However,
the research team was conscious of the differences between school library and education provision in the US and the
UK.

There have been a number of recent attempts to develop methods of evaluating UK school libraries. In a recent
research project, Williams and Wavell (2001) attempted to measure the impact of the school library on learning by
dividing learning into four themes:



motivation (enthusiasm, absorption, continuation, attitude);
progression (library and information handling skills, information and communication technology (ICT) skills,
study skills, reading skills, new knowledge, achievement and application of skills or knowledge);
independence (confidence, awareness of need for help, independent study, transference of skills, self-esteem
and initiative);
interaction (discussion, cooperation, friendships and behaviour).

This novel approach had a number of advantages, such as allowing for the consideration of a wide range of benefits
which may result from library use, not simply academic attainment. However, in practice, it proved difficult for some
school staff to grasp initially.

'The Difference We're Making', produced by Birmingham Advisory and Support Service and Schools Library
Service (2002), also focused on the impact of the library on pupils' learning, considering how the library can: motivate
pupils; support the development of reading skills; support learning in curriculum subjects; and support independent
learning.

However, more traditional aspects of library evaluation, such as access, staffing and resources and management, were
also dealt with.

The documents which, perhaps, had the greatest influence on the research team were the Scottish school library self-
evaluation documents. These were considered to be useful tools to evaluate learning and teaching outcomes because
they place a strong emphasis on qualitative as well as quantitative indicators. Their structure is based around the
Scottish whole school evaluation framework How Good is Our School (HGIOS) and is therefore closely linked to the
inspection of schools by HM Inspectorate of Education (2002), the Scottish equivalent of Ofsted.

Ofsted and self-evaluation
Although, to some extent, the move towards greater self-evaluation in English schools in the latter half of the 1990s
arose from the desire by schools and teachers to assess for themselves how well they are doing, it was not simply a
bottom-up initiative. The second Ofsted Inspection Framework published in 1996 placed greater emphasis on the
school's own evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses (Rudd & Davies, 2000). Later Ofsted publications have
offered further advice on self-evaluation, arguing:

The school that knows and understands itself is well on its way to solving any
problems it has … self-evaluation is the key to improvement. (Ofsted, 1999)

By the end of the 1990s, Rudd and Davies (1999) claimed that 'it is clear that Ofsted now views external inspection
and self-evaluation as complementary activities' and encourages schools to base any self-evaluation on the same
criteria as those used by inspectors (Ofsted, 1999). This movement has continued to develop; as David Bell reported
in November 2002, from September 2003, 'there will be a greater emphasis on schools knowing themselves through
self-evaluation' (Bell, 2002). This echoed Mike Tomlinson's statement earlier in the year:

The development of robust, objective self-evaluation is central to the progress
and improvement of schools. (Ofsted, 2002b)

From September 2003, Ofsted's Framework for Inspecting Schools will 'take greater account of school self-evaluation
to inform inspection' (Ofsted, 2002a).

However, some commentators, such as Saunders, have argued strongly against external and internal evaluation
conforming to identical agendas; she feels that this runs the risk that 'important things will be lost' (Saunders, 1999, p.
417). A self-evaluation which is driven by identical criteria to external inspections is likely to produce only cosmetic
improvements. Rather, self-evaluation should ask different questions to those posed by external evaluators. Even Rudd
and Davis (1999), who largely support basing school self-evaluation on the Ofsted criteria, admit that there may be
problems because the two types of evaluation differ. Whereas external evaluation is usually seen, primarily, as an
accountability exercise, an attempt to drive up standards through competition and comparison, self-evaluation is more



concerned with enlightenment and improvement and presents an opportunity for schools to choose their own measures
of effectiveness. Some schools and Local Education Authorities (LEAs) have therefore chosen to adopt alternative
frameworks to that advocated by Ofsted, for example, Investors in People, Chartermark, ISO 9000 and the European
Business Excellence Model (European Commission, 2001).

Devising a school library self-evaluation model
Although a number of alternative models were considered by the research team, it was eventually decided to base the
structure for school library self-evaluation on the Ofsted Inspection Framework (Ofsted, 2002a). From interviewees with
the working party responsible for developing the Scottish school library self-evaluation documents, it appeared that the
technique of basing a model of school library evaluation on the external inspection framework had proved successful. It
meant that the structure and concepts were familiar to teachers and others in the education sector and that the library
could be placed on an equal footing with subject departments and other aspects of school life. The fact that the work
was commissioned by a group headed by the DfES and including Ofsted representation also, inevitably, influenced this
decision to some extent.

However, this does not mean that the self-evaluation process is intended to duplicate an Ofsted inspection. Although
the overall structure of the school library self-evaluation model is based on the Ofsted framework, schools are
encouraged to focus on just one aspect of library provision to evaluate rather than taking a more general view of the
library as would be the case in an inspection. This in-depth approach is intended to complement the overview provided
by Ofsted. At present, the school library is rarely examined in any depth during an inspection. A search of Ofsted's
Inspection Reports database covering the period 1 September 1999 to 31 August 2001 undertaken on behalf of the
SLWG found that the school library was mentioned in 94% of all inspection reports for secondary schools (SLWG,
2002). However, as the 'Inspecting School Libraries and Resource Centres Update' reported:

The text [of the inspection report] often gives too little emphasis to their [libraries']
role in the school's curriculum provision and their contribution to standards of
attainment and to teaching and learning. (Ofsted, 2001)

It is hoped that the models developed during this project may encourage inspectors to look more closely at the library
and to reflect on its contribution to teaching and learning rather than simply focusing on more superficial measures
such as number of resources or amount of use. MacBeath (1999) has identified four possible purposes for evaluation:
accountability, comparison, marketing and diagnosis. Although the model developed during this project can be used for
all these purposes, the focus is on diagnosis to improve library provision in schools. However, school libraries should
also be encouraged to provide evidence for Ofsted to demonstrate that they are an integral part of teaching, learning
and general school life. It is likely to create less work for busy library staff if the method of self-evaluation can be
adapted to serve both purposes if necessary.

The uses of self-evaluation
It was therefore hoped that the self-evaluation models produced would be useful to Ofsted inspectors, both before and
during inspections. They would provide a framework within which the inspection of the library can be carried out,
ensuring that sufficient emphasis is placed on the role of the library in every school inspection. However, supporting the
inspection process is by no means the only reason for evaluating the school library and it is hoped that the models can
be used for other purposes. Although the models suggest that schools collect data which would be suitable to present
to Ofsted inspectors, the depth of information collected during a self-evaluation is intended to be much greater than
inspectors would require and would also allow schools to use the information to formulate plans for improvement. A
number of other uses of evaluation findings were identified from the literature review and survey:

Improving teaching and learning: by demonstrating the contribution of the library to teaching and learning,
evaluation may further teachers' understanding of the strengths of the library and help to suggest ways in which
they might make better use of it in lesson planning and activities.
Improving working practices: the evaluation might suggest specific changes such as changing opening hours or



improving signage. These should then be monitored to discover how successful they are and whether they
improve the performance of the library.
Report writing: the evidence collected can be incorporated into the library's annual report to show current
success and standing and also areas of need.
Improvement planning: self-evaluation can inform improvement planning by allowing library staff to identify key
strengths and weaknesses and then prioritize needs and set targets. These should be aligned to actions in the
school improvement plan.
Budgeting: the evidence collected through self-evaluation can help to inform priorities for budget planning and
indicate where greater investment is needed.
Bidding for funding: the information can provide evidence to support bids for additional funding, both internally
and from external organizations.
Staffing: self-evaluation can indicate ways in which staff deployment might be made more effective and indicate
when and where greater support is needed. The exercise may also highlight areas where further professional
development is needed to allow the library staff to fulfil their roles more effectively.
Publicity: evidence can be used to raise awareness of the importance of the library amongst teachers and to
promote library use within the school.
Advocacy: self-evaluation can be used to highlight the importance of the library within the school and also
locally or nationally by school librarians, teachers or groups representing their interests such as the SLA or
Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP).

An important feature of self-evaluation is that it allows schools to develop their own agenda and to focus on particular
aspects of the school which its own staff have identified as areas in need of improvement. The criteria for self-
evaluation should reflect the school's own priorities. In the school library evaluation model, self-evaluation is not seen as
an alternative to external inspection, but rather as complementary; as they have different focuses and approaches, the
two should support each other.

It is important that the focus chosen for a self-evaluation is carefully selected. As MacBeath et al. (2000) point out, no
school has time to evaluate every aspect of its operation. To ensure evaluation is effective, it should not be focused
solely on the most innovative aspects of the work of the school, nor should resources be devoted to what is
progressing well or areas which are only of interest to a minority. The school library self-evaluation models encourage
schools to focus on a single aspect of library provision at any one time. The theme chosen is likely to reflect the aims
and objectives of the library, as set out in the library policy documentation, which, in turn, reflect the concerns of the
whole school as stated in the school improvement plan. The focus selected may relate to an area which has been
targeted for improvement, perhaps as a result of previous evaluation or an inspection report; areas the school believes
to require improvement; new initiatives which have been introduced; or simply areas where the school is not sure how
good the standard of provision is. It could also reflect more widespread concerns highlighted by local SLSs, the LEA or
national bodies such as the SLA, CILIP, Ofsted or the DfES.

Attitudes towards self-evaluation
Stenhouse's theory of curriculum research and development gave primacy to the professional judgement of teachers
(Stenhouse, 1975) and others such as Elliott (1978) have argued that self-evaluation is not simply a means of
addressing demands for accountability, but an instrument to be used by teachers to improve their own performance.
The role of school staff, be they teachers or librarians is, therefore, central to the self-evaluation process. According to
Simons (1982) a major justification for self-evaluation is enhanced professionalism; it is an activity which should be
introduced as a continuing part of professional practice.

According to MacBeath, 'teachers are natural evaluators' (MacBeath, 1999, p. 7) and the same could easily be argued
to be true of librarians. As Simons (1982) pointed out, evaluation undertaken as shared, coordinated, public effort may
be rare, but informal, non-systematic, private evaluation happens all the time. The survey carried out for this project
indicated that, while in many cases evaluation was an activity which was undertaken by library staff simply when they
happened to find the time, in several schools it formed part of the librarian's annual performance review. Most library
staff therefore continually carried out informal evaluation, even if more formal approaches are uncommon. The
development of the school library self-evaluation model is an attempt to recognize formally existing processes which the
majority of library staff carry out as a matter of course.

Rudd and Davies (1999) found that the extent to which schools have ownership of their self-evaluation activity varies
considerably in practice. Some staff tend to remain suspicious or see it as an activity which adds unnecessarily to


considerably in practice. Some staff tend to remain suspicious or see it as an activity which adds unnecessarily to
existing workloads. To help to overcome resistance, it is essential that evaluation is seen as a participative process.
According to Saunders, self-evaluation should be democratic and involve all stakeholders, being based on trust,
teamwork and ownership (Saunders, 1999, p. 417). The emphasis in the school library self-evaluation models is on
ownership by the school, in particular, library staff. They are encouraged to chose a theme which is relevant to them;
collect evidence in ways which best suit their needs and fit in with existing working practices; and use this to determine
how library provision might be improved. The models are, therefore, intended not only to give schools an idea of the
standard of their library provision, but also to provide a starting point for improvement. Self-evaluation, it is stressed,
should be just one part of the overall planning cycle.

While some school library staff are clearly keen to evaluate the library and have a clear appreciation of the value of
doing so, others may be more reluctant to regard this as an integral part of their job. There is a need to persuade all
library staff of the benefits of carrying out evaluation; these include improving working practices; planning library
development; bidding for additional funding; or preparing for inspection. There is no doubt that 'word of mouth' will be
important, but at a more formal level, articles in the professional press and advocacy by the SLA, CILIP, ASCEL, SLSs
and others will be valuable.

Conclusion
The importance of self-evaluation in schools is widely recognized. However, the evaluation of library provision is an
area of the school which is often neglected. Where evaluation of the library does occur, it is usually undertaken with
respect to the management of resources rather than the impact of provision on teaching and learning. It is vital that
library evaluation is closely linked to the evaluation of other aspects of the school and related to the overall aims of the
school, in particular support for effective teaching and learning.

Self-evaluation should be a regular part of normal school life which involves everyone: staff, pupils, parents, governors,
inspectors and the wider community. It should be a constant process in a cycle which includes identifying priorities for
improvement; monitoring provision; and evaluating outcomes. If the value of the library in supporting teaching and
learning is to be fully appreciated, its evaluation should be seen as an integral part of whole school self-evaluation. For
this reason, there are numerous references in the school library self-evaluation models to the ways in which the library
interacts with other parts of the school. Similarly, it is recommended that references to the use of the library are
included in departmental and whole-school self-evaluation documents.

The self-evaluation of the school library is not solely the responsibility of library staff. The active involvement of senior
management is crucial in ensuring that the self-evaluation can be conducted effectively and the findings fed into whole
school planning. The support of other staff, such as the Literacy Coordinator and Special Educational Needs
Coordinator (SENCO), are also likely to be required. In schools with less well-developed library provision and limited
staffing, the incorporation of library issues into wider evaluations may be all that is realistically feasible. However, in
those with better-developed library provision and higher levels of staffing, the models devised allow a particular aspect
of the library's contribution to teaching and learning to be evaluated in greater depth and specific actions for
improvement to be identified. The models are, therefore, intended to be accessible to all schools to enable them to
evaluate the current quality and effectiveness of their school library and to identify strengths and weaknesses in order
to determine priorities for improvement which will allow them to support teaching and learning more effectively.

The models devised through this research are currently being piloted and the final versions are likely to be introduced
to schools during the next academic year. In the meantime, the project report and further details are available at
http://www.cie.uce.ac.uk/cirt/projects/past/schoolsem.htm.

Correspondence: Centre for Information Research (CIRT), University of Central England, Perry Barr, Birmingham B42
2SU, UK. E-mail: Sarah.Mcnicol@uce.ac.uk

REFERENCES



1. Bell, D. ((2002)) Speech by David Bell at the QEII Conference Centre, Westminster, London to mark OFSTED's
tenth anniversary. — Available online at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&id=1376
[your library's links]
2. ((2002)) The difference we're making: library provision in Birmingham secondary schools. — Birmingham Advisory
and Support Service and Schools Library Service; (Birmingham, Birmingham Advisory and Support Service and
Schools Library Service) [your library's links]
3. Elliott, J. and Harlen, W. ((1978)) Classroom accountability and the self-monitoring teacher. A guide for evaluation
decision makers — in; (Ed.); (Beverly Hills, CA, Sage) [your library's links]
4. Ericson, J. ((1992)) The development of a self-evaluation project in schools. British Journal of In-service Education
18:(2) , p. 107. [your library's links]
5. ((2001)) Effective school self-evaluation (ESSE) project. — European Commission; Available online at:
http://www.sici.org.uk/ESSE/additional_reports/England.pdf [your library's links]
6. ((2002)) How good is our school? Self-evaluation using quality indicators (HGIOS). — HM Inspectorate of Education;
Available online at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/hmie/schoolsfolder/SchoolsFolder/index.htm [your library's links]
7. Macbeath, J. ((1999)) Schools must speak for themselves: the case for school self-evaluation. — (London,
Routledge) [your library's links]
8. Macbeath, J., Schratz, M., Meurat, D. and Jakobsen, L. ((2000)) Self-evaluation in European schools. — (London,
Routledge/Falmer) [your library's links]
9. Markless, S. and Streatfield, D. ((2000)) Becoming more effective: some choices. Education Libraries Journal 43:(3)
, p. 5. [your library's links]
10. Norris, N. ((1990)) Understanding educational evaluation. — (London, Kogan Page) [your library's links]
11. ((1999)) The evaluation schedule: short and full inspections. — Ofsted; (London, Ofsted) [your library's links]
12. ((2001)) Inspecting school libraries and learning resource centres (Appendix D). — Ofsted; Available online at:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/about/update36-08.htm [your library's links]
13. ((2002a)) Inspecting schools: the framework for inspecting schools in England from September 2003, evaluation
schedule. — Ofsted; (London, Ofsted) [your library's links]
14. ((2002b)) Overall quality of education still improving, but worries about secondary schools remain, says Chief
Inspector. — Ofsted; Available online at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.details&id=1212
[your library's links]
15. Rudd, P. and Davies, D. ((2000)) Evaluating school self-evaluation, presented at the. British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference — 7 September 2000. Available online at:
http://www.nfer.ac.uk/research/papers/BERA.Rudd.doc, accessed 24 February 2003 [your library's links]
16. Saunders, L. ((1999)) Who or what is school 'self'-evaluation for?. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 10:(4) , p. 414. [your library's links] [informaworld]
17. ((2002)) Minutes of the fourth meeting of the School Libraries Working Group. — School Libraries Working Group
(SLWG); 18 April. Available online at: http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/empower/, accessed 28 February 2003 [your
library's links]
18. Simons, H. and Mccormick, R. ((1982)) Process evaluation in schools. Calling education to account — in; (Ed.);
(Milton Keynes, Open University Press) [your library's links]
19. ((2001)) Effective school self-evaluation project. — Standing International Conference of Inspectorates; Available
online at: http://www.sici.org.uk/ESSE/index_esse.html, accessed 24 February 2003 [your library's links]
20. Stenhouse, L. ((1975)) An introduction to curriculum research and development. — (London, Heinemann) [your
library's links]
21. Williams, D. and Wavell, C. ((2001)) Impact of the school library resource centre on learning. — (Aberdeen, Robert
Gordon University) [your library's links]
22. Williams, D., Wavell, C. and Coles, D. ((2002)) Impact of school library services on achievement and learning:
critical literature review of the impact of school library services on achievement and learning to inform the work of the
DfES Task Group set up to implement actions contained in the Government's response to empowering the learning
community. — (London, Resource) [your library's links]


Incorporating Library Provision In School Self Evaluation Educational Review 1

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Incorporating Library Provision In School Self Evaluation Educational Review 1

More from BE/CRE

Recently uploaded

Incorporating Library Provision In School Self Evaluation Educational Review 1