• The Danish education system operates at 3 distinct levels - national government, local authority and the individual school within its community.

• At national level, education is controlled partly by legislation tin the case of the Folkeskole) and partly by centralised regulation e.g. of educational standards through examinations (as in Upper Secondary Education). For the Folkeskole curricular competences are set centrally and optional guidance provided to schools. Curriculum at Upper Secondary School level is linked to the centrally controlled state examination system. As a model of national planning for education, the Folkeskole Act (1993) sets out principles in relation to compulsory education for all children through the formal school system.

• The local government structure (municipalities) allows for interpretation, through regulation, of national aims for the Folkeskole in a local context- for example, the framework of educational expectations set out by Aarhus municipality for its citizens, based on a comprehensive user survey among parents, teachers, school authorities - and decisions on infrastructure and resource allocation. The municipality is nominally responsible for ensuring schools' compliance with the terms of the Act on the Folkeskole. The municipality's responsibility for education is confined to the Folkeskole system. It does not make decisions for individual schools.

• The individual school is given responsibility to fulfil municipal objectives for education within its own local context. Schools are autonomous, democratic units with significant freedom to make decisions regarding school structure, resource allocation, curriculum, teaching and learning methodologies and quality assurance. The right of the school to define much of its own existence is axiomatic within the Danish school system.

3. Commentary on the Danish System

The overall impression formed by delegates was of an educational system with very strong core values and which produced highly confident, assertive and independent young people with a desire to extend and enrich their education in a variety of ways, both within the formal system and tangential to it.

Delegates highlighted the following issues which provided a structure for group discussion and conclusions:

• The influence of national culture/system of social organisation/lifestyle/value-set on educational decision-making
• Local v. Centralised control and power over educational decision-making
• Internal v. External responsibility for quality, involving school, local authority and national input
• Curriculum: Presentation: Generalisation (= breadth) v. Specialisation in curriculum choice and options; links to assessment

1. Some general strengths of the Danish system as identified by the group

• The level and degree of child-centredness
• Democratisation and its ability to instil confidence in pupils/students, responsibility in teachers, pride in all stakeholders in a school and a culturally delineated sense of what quality in education actually means
• The coherent development of individual and group competences
• The focus on learning how to learn and on life-long learning
• The opportunities for collegial decision-making and team-work among teachers
• The value placed on teacher autonomy
• The involvement and influence of parents in schools' decision-making
• The attitude towards freedom of choice which inspired many students to see their education, not as a smooth continuum dictated by targets, but as a series of opportunities to be taken at a pace informed by the individual's own life choices.

2. Some perceived concerns

• Emphasis on terminal examinations, rather than graded knowledge-based learning objectives at various points in schooling, as indicators of pupil attainment
• Aspects of discontinuity between the "cultures" of Folkeskole and upper secondary education, leading to potential transition problems for pupils

• Apparent lack of recognition given to the prior Folkeskole attainment of pupils as an assessment tool in transition to upper secondary school
• Danger of professional isolation of teachers within small self-regulating teaching teams

• Perpetuation of poor practice in schools with weak leadership without external moderation and advice

• Suitability of pedagogical approach in Folkeskole to the full range of age-groups

• Negative reactions to international surveys rather than establishing what is good within the system through appropriate evaluation/assessment methodology

3. National focus on quality in education

• At national level, it was the group's perception that quality in education is largely measured by the extent to which policy, as set out in the Act on the Folkeskole, for example, enshrines principles which reflect key aspects of Danish ethos and culture. The individual, for example, is at the core of that ethos and education policy is driven by the need to ensure that the child, rather than structure, is at the centre of education decision-making, key aspects of which should take place as close as possible to the locus of learning. It is the child as learner which dominates the educational philosophy - the content and rate of learning, though relevant, are not as important as the quality of the learning process. A related principle is that of life-long learning, which is reflected in attitudes to school curriculum and to programme choice for students at primary/lower secondary and at upper secondary levels.

• The group was impressed by the level of national confidence in delegating educational decision-making to local authority and school levels. There was concern, however, that, notwithstanding recent developments in the area of quality assurance, there was a lack of sufficient data and evidence at national level about key aspects of the school system to support effective policy-making and to define future development in the educational system. The group noted, however, the recent commitment at national level to ensure a quality-driven focus on key elements of the Folkeskole Act as defined in the F2000 initiative, whereby schools are asked to concentrate development energy on 8 specific aspects of the Folkeskole activity - for example: ensuring adequate learning challenge for each individual pupil, specification of knowledge and ability in particular areas of learning, strengthening the foundation of the early Folkeskole years. Of particular interest was the move to set up a National Evaluation Institution to lead research into issues of quality in education, thus reflecting a groundswell of opinion in favour of some form of external moderation of what is actually happening in the education system and in its constituent parts.

• In general, it was felt that national policy on quality assurance may be influenced by the oft-expressed resistance of teachers and of schools to any initiative which might be construed as external control of decision-making, thus undermining the democratic nature of the educational process at ground level. The group detected, however, that influences were at play within Danish society which were causing policy-makers to review attitudes to quality assurance within education as a whole. The existence of international comparative data was seen by the group to have potential for causing significant reflection upon present educational performance, with potential for major change in policy in this regard.

4. Quality assurance at local authority level

• The role of the municipality in mediating national policy to its schools can be seen as a form of quality control between the state and the school. By defining for its schools a framework of expectations for education, Århus Municipality is seen to influence the quality of education provision within its area by responding both to the national requirements of the Folkeskole Act and to the demands of its citizens, with respect to education as outlined in a survey of partners in education. The production of School Plans by schools is evidence of compliance with a requirement for transparency in school decision-making, if not, as yet, for accountability. This indicates that a quality-driven agenda is in place at municipality level.

• A further initiative reflecting concern for quality issues is the inservice training planned for school management which will aim to equip such personnel to take responsibility for pedagogic development within their schools, including creating adequate dialogue among staff. This implies that schools require to reflect on their performance and, by extension, on their basic philosophy of teaching and learning. It was very encouraging to note the commitment of the Danish Royal School for Educational Studies to provide an inservice structure to support such reflection, albeit only at the behest of individual schools at present. Such planning at municipal level reflects municipality concern, as expressed through their advisory service, to improve school management and promote an attitude of continuous quality development within the school as a learning organisation. The concern is to convince schools to engage with this activity as part of their normal work, rather than have it viewed as "extra" or, more destructively, as imposed control from without.

• As with central management of education, the group saw an inherent weakness in a system which promotes school development planning and school self-evaluation, as modes of quality assurance per se. While it is necessary, it would appear, that Folkeskoles present their School Plans to the municipality for approval, there is no apparent structure whereby such plans can be assessed as being adequate for the tasks for which they are intended. The group was strongly of the opinion that some form of external evaluation of schools was necessary as a mirror to the school's own evaluation and planning mechanisms.

• It is acknowledged that the results of external evaluation are important only if they empower schools to make decisions about their performance and to carry out changes, where necessary. While resistance among school communities to such "interference" would be guaranteed to exist, the group considered that there were many potential benefits to be gained from such an intervention in terms of the professional development of teachers and of school development generally. The concept of external evaluation needs to be promoted in a positive and proactive way as an agent of school and teacher development. Experience among the group would suggest that teachers, at very least, should be active participants in the design of the tools and methodologies to be used in such a developmental activity.

5. The school as a locus of quality

• In practice it is at school level in Denmark that quality in education is defined most sharply, plans made for its development and improvement and methods of assuring it most clearly focused. Examples of such practice would include the use of the "class teacher" system in the Folkeskole, the team approach to planning learning programmes for individual classes and children, the level of parental interest in-school life generally and in decision-making in particular as "checks and balances" to the planning of teachers, the level of democratisation in classrooms and in staffrooms and, most strikingly, the contribution of the individual to his/her own learning curve.

• The Danish school appears to offer much space for teacher initiative in an environment where trust of the teacher is again axiomatic. A high level of individual responsibility (in terms of planning, methodology, pupil assessment) and teamwork is expected of teachers; thus defining their professionalism and a collegial approach to decision-making encouraged in what may be described as a very flat hierarchical structure. Authority resides in that trust and responsibility. Given that, in a Folkeskole of 800 pupils and 70 teachers, 35 separate pedagogical teams may exist and require to be managed, consensus on quality may be extremely difficult to achieve.

• At upper secondary level, where the quality of teaching and learning observed was uniformly high, it would be easy to define school quality in terms of "added value" based on examination results at the end of the standard 3-year period. However, structures are in place which are designed to encourage reflection on the ongoing quality of teaching and learning. As an example, pupils have a key role in the democratisation of Danish schooling - they have a part to play in helping schools fulfil a Ministry decree that all teaching must be evaluated and structures for their input are in place.

• It was interesting for the group to note the quite limited continuity between Folkeskole and upper secondary school in terms of shared information about pupils in transition between the two systems. However, a move to improve the quality of guidance for Folkeskole pupils on their upper secondary education choices would appear to have great potential in increasing the nature, amount and quality of personal and achievement data on pupils transferring from one to the other. Such plans notwithstanding, it was very uplifting for the group to hear in one upper secondary school of staff moves towards self-evaluation and towards planning for change and development in a number of specific areas and doing so in full acknowledgement of the partnership between teachers and pupils in planning change for the sake of quality.

• In the group's view, the role of the school Head in quality assurance is in the very early stages of development and is, to varying extents, dependent upon the willingness of teachers to cede some quality assurance "ground" and upon a new sense of empowerment to take an assertive leadership role in matters of quality. It was somewhat surprising to many in the group that a Head would not be very familiar with all aspects of the work of his/her school and would not feel empowered to be at the cutting edge of all school activities, whether in classrooms, in planning meetings or in looking at the outcomes of the work of individual classes and of the school. Evidence from the visit confirms the view that until accountability for - and not just management responsibility for- in-school quality matters is laid firmly at the door of school Heads, development in this area will depend very much on the personality and professionalism of individual Heads. In addition, it was felt that more responsibility should be placed upon the individual teacher to be accountable for his/her performance in the classroom.

• A key distinction in matters of quality for Heads and their staffs not apparent to the group is that between school improvement ("Are we doing better" - a goal of self-evaluation) and school effectiveness ("Are we good enough?"' - a goal which requires not only self-evaluation but also benchmark data and judgements of a comparative nature). This raises the need for some form of external evaluation against agreed norms using appropriate evaluation criteria. The group identified as an issue of concern, the lack of benchmark data on quality in school education and, more significantly, the structural nature of that system which is designed to resist such national benchmarking.

6. Issues for further consideration, as identified by delegates

Notwithstanding their utmost respect and admiration for the core values of the Danish educational system, the study visit delegates raised the following issues which were felt to be worthy of future consideration and attention:

• The state of readiness of Danish teachers generally to cope with imminent changes in respect of quality assurance and accountability

• The availability of appropriate structures for facilitating and managing change at school and individual teacher level
• The need to develop quality assurance tools in the form of evaluative instruments and mechanisms to identify and measure the "added value" associated with educational planning and implementation at the level of the individual school

• The need for multi-level evaluation within the education system

• The lack of comprehensive system data on the quality of the learning process at Folkeskole and in Upper Secondary Education, and in particular on the match between teaching and learning processes and pupils' individual abilities

• The need for more active pupil guidance towards the end of Folkeskole to inform the direction of their further education

• The maturity of some children at Folkeskole to cope with the demands of democratisation
• The high level (20%) of school drop-out at upper secondary level.

4. Postscript

All delegates expressed great enthusiasm for the quality of organisation and the level of welcome and hospitality associated with this ARION Study Visit to the Århus Municipality. The programme was suitably varied and extremely stimulating in content. As each of the delegates represented education systems in which the move to quality assurance was at different stages of development, it was agreed that the visit was extremely beneficial in their reflection upon their own systems.

Of particular note was the generosity with which heads of schools and other institutions gave of their valuable time to meet with the delegation, to provide extensive briefing and observation sessions and to engage so actively with the delegates in discussing the theme of the visit and its implications for their institution.

In particular, great appreciation is due to

• Ms. Lynda Oddershedde, head teacher of Virup Folkeskole and her staff and pupils;
• Mr. Ole Juhl, Headmaster, Ms. Inger Meier, international coordinator, other staff members and students at Aarhus Statsgymnasium;
• Mr; Soren Aksel Sorensen, National Advisor for Danish Language and ,Literature (Folkeskole);
• Ms. Marianne Thane and Ms. Marianne Nykjaer, inservice education developers at the Danish Royal School for Educational Studies;
• Mr. Teis Trane (Municipal School Consultant), Mr. Lars Kjems (headteacher), Ms. Lone Abildgaard (municipal school consultant) and Mr. Jens Vibe Michelson (Deputy Director) at the Århus Municipality School Authorities offices;
• Mr. Preben Clausen, Director of VUC Århus Adult Education Centre;
• Mr. Stig Madsen, Head of N. Kochs Skole.

Special thanks is due to Mr Madsen and the administrative office at his school for facilitating the printing of the draft report in time for the final meeting of the group at which the report was discussed and finalised.

The cohesion of the group ensured not only much spirited discourse during the structured group sessions but also gave an excellent social dimension to the visit. The group greatly appreciated the firm, but always good-humoured management of all aspects of the visit programme by Jens Hyldahl Andersen on behalf of ICU.

In retrospect, it was the feeling of the group that, while the programme balance between the excellent briefing, observation and discussion sessions was very satisfactory, the visits to institutions would have been more focused for delegates had they followed, rather then being preceded by some of the relevant briefing sessions. In addition, the group would have greatly appreciated further opportunities for discussion with teachers and, in particular, with parents, given their significant role in decision-making in Danish education and their contribution to quality issues in schools.

Pat Kitterick, Senior Inspector, Department of Education and Science, Dublin, Ireland

(rapporteur on behalf of the delegates on ARION Study Visit 20.03)