DISEÑO MECÁNICO

The Performance Management System (PMS) was initiated in 2010. Through this agreement the MoE committed itself to improve the performance of schools based on students’ learning outcome by trying to reducing numbers of repeating students, promoting GNH in all schools and enhancing teachers’ satisfaction. The broad objective of PMS is to achieve Bhutan’s goal of universal access to education and providing quality education (MoE, 2011c). The then Education Minister Thakur S Powdyel stressed that “by assessing school performance, the ministry is taking into account the integrity of school life, and requiring the schools to operate at a very high level, both academically and intellectually” (Palden, 2013, para.14). PMS as a tool is suitable for measuring the performance of individual schools on an annual basis and providing suitable support and interventions.

This activity, whose reports are submitted annually, is supervised by the Education Monitoring Support Services Division (EMSSD) which operates under the ministry. However, the evaluation of schools is decentralized and is conducted by the DEOs and ADEOs who visit schools at the start and mid of every academic year (Palden, 2013).

CHAPTER 6: NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY PLANNING AT THE CENTRAL LEVEL

The main tasks of PMS are (MoE, 2011c, p.25):

i) to ensure development focus and support individuals, schools and dzongkhags in improving performance;

ii) to create a healthy competition and merit-based amongst the schools; iii) to propel action through the use of indicators and help identify key areas of

school improvement;

iv) to build on and strengthen existing systems; and v) to make it ‘simple’ to use.

The PMS is measured based on the three scorecards namely “(a) Academic learning; (b) Enabling practices in teaching and learning and (c) achievements on GNH practices in the schools” (MoE, 2011c, p.4). An academic scorecard assesses the students’ performance against the existing enabling practices and investigates whether schools and teachers have introduced any innovations and improvements for better performance. A GNH scorecard measures school’s performance in relation to factors such as social greenery and environment greenery (BBS, 2013). There are three types of assessments. These include school performance scorecards, school self-assessment (SSA) and annual school improvement plan (A-SIP) (Palden, 2013). The school performance scorecard and school improvement plan are assessed by the DEO and ADEO while SSA scorecard marks is done individually by the schools. The development of PMS involves various stakeholders such as DEOs/ADEOs, principals, teachers and the officials of the ministry. The system was also pre-tested prior to implementation in schools across the country (MoE, 2011c).

Using the scorecards, schools are ranked annually and a list of the top ten schools of the different levels is announced. The ranking is done based on a category which divides the schools into four levels; from PP to III (pre-PS), IV to VI (PS), VII to X (MSS) and XI to XII (HSS). The top 40 schools in the different levels are awarded certificates. Special focus is given to those schools that need improvement. Education monitoring officers visit the schools with low performance to find out the causes and identify appropriate solutions and interventions. EMSSD provides support to these schools and help in the preparation of school improvement plans. They also accompany the schools and help to implement the plans until their PMS rating ranks high. However, it must be observed that when schools don’t appear in the top ten ranking it does not mean that those schools are not performing well (Pokhrel, 2015). The PMS tool helps in the continuous assessment of the performance of schools.

PMS has been used since 2010 and found to be a useful method to assess school performance. It has however also been found to have the following limitations (MoE, 2012a, p.7):

(i) At the system level:

• All the schools irrespective of levels are assessed with the same parameters;

• The rating range is quite limited (1-4).

(ii) At the implementation level:

• The management in some schools do not conduct School Self- Assessment genuinely;

• Assessment of schools by some of the DEOs and ADEOs are not objective and therefore the ratings are not reliable;

• Some DEOs and ADEOs do make timely visits to the school;

• Support in many cases is not provided in time;

• Some schools and DEOs dismiss PMS purely as school rankings. Some principals and DEOs are of the opinion that PMS are not fairly conducted and it is reported that not all schools are in the “same level playing field” (MoE, 2012a, p.7). However, MoE (2012a) clarifies that PMS is not intended to ensure that all schools are at same level but rather it is a mechanism to encourage high performance schools and to provide support to low performing schools. “Odious Comparisons” (2015, para.4), in questioning PMS poised thus, “Do we need such a ranking system to gauge our schools? Are the methods adopted to assess schools fair?” Further, the paper also raises issues around the clarity in criterion used and using the same template to assess all level of schools. For example, different levels will reveal varying results in their assessment scorecards on factors such as effectiveness of infrastructure, quality and impact of teaching, training and so on. This leads to the question on the varying realities of schools in the country and the use of the same template in assessing them. How can schools having poor infrastructure, charging high fees because they are private schools, running autonomously and categorized as central schools be ranked using the same scorecard? Other issues such as student-teacher ratio, age of school infrastructure and location – rural and urban schools are also important to consider. “Odious Comparisons” (Ibid) also suggests that “the criteria to measure and compare schools must be more detailed and inclusive of several factors, yet grading schools is not a good practice” and in a CDA perspective it seems that there is a contradiction between the texts, policies and intentions and the reality as seen from school teachers point of view. Schools can compete amongst themselves without ranking and it is also important to envision each school beyond their performance score.

CHAPTER 6: NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY PLANNING AT THE CENTRAL LEVEL