COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL INTERNAL AUDIT INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITES: CONTENT ASPECT
Authors: Aušrinė Jarutienė, Vincentas Lamanauskas
Number of views: 200
Education quality questions become urgent for all educational institutions regardless of their type, the kind, size of provided services and so on. Thus, it is natural, that quality questions become more urgent for comprehensive schools as well. In the latter years, quite a lot of attention has been devoted to comprehensive school internal audit thematic. We can state, that internal audit is only a tiny sphere of quality management. Such type of examining of institution activity (internal state) in any case is only partial, insufficiently objective and so on. However, internal audit (IA) carried out in an appropriate way, without doubt, helps to improve school’s activity, if educational institution is interested in this itself.
The results obtained during the research revealed that schools before presenting internal audit data on their website, both during the processing the received results and later on face difficulties. Also, there is, ob-viously, lack of concrete directions on how this process has to be carried out. It is obvious, that internal audit methodics are being applied not effectively, it is not clear what information presentation form has to be and what information should be announced in public. The research showed that the presented information content is not exhaustive, does not reflect school assessment process, schools tend not to show on their website at what level they evaluated their activity, usually only the weakest, the strongest and improvement requiring school activity sides are pointed out.
This article presents research results which reveal comprehensive school internal audit information content aspects.
Activity sphere evaluation based on concrete evaluation indicators: on average, both in the old IA methodics and in the updated IA methodics, activity spheres are evaluated 2.5, i.e, as an intermediate variant between 2nd and 3rd evaluation level: there are more strong features than shortcomings, however, the activity is adequate, but has to be improved.
The highest quality having assessed school activity sphere in the old IA methodics – learning achie-vements – is evaluated at level 3, in the updated methodics – educability and learning and student support.
Both in the old and in the updated IA methodics these activity spheres are evaluated equally (2,6) – school management, learning and education, student support, resources; (2,8) – school culture, achievements, ethos.
The evaluation of advantages, disadvantages and activity spheres that need improvement: In both IA metodics the most frequently assessed activity sphere is related with the applicability of the education content to the learner. These spheres were the least evaluated: in the old IA methodics the fifth sphere – ethos, in the updated IA methodics – also the fifth activity sphere, however, it is related with the strategic management of the school. Gymnasiums, comparing the results of both IA methodics analyses, tend not to evaluate activity spheres, pointing out advantages, disadvantages and activity aspects requiring improvement in the way basic, secondary and special schools do. The old IA methodics was applied more in secondary schools; the updated IA is most frequently applied in basic and secondary schools.