The VRU is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the quality of vocational provision, identifying strengths and areas for improvement, establishing success measures, spreading best practice and offering policy advice to key stakeholders, including the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education. Following an extensive period of pilot and development work, the VRU commenced its first review cycle in September 2008. Independent reviews of vocational training have proved a catalyst for improvement elsewhere in the world. The VRU seeks to ensure that the quality of vocational provision is at a level required by employers and that provides the range and level of skills required by a dynamic economy.

Regular review, with realistic recommendations that are speedily carried out by all those responsible, enables timely and well-focused changes to practice. Moreover, it helps establish a culture of self-evaluation which will drive continuous improvement.

There are gains all around, but particularly for:

·  learners, who will receive higher quality, better focused training.

·  providers, who will develop a clear understanding of what they need to do to improve

·  employers, who will be able to access a better skilled workforce

Al vocational training providers holding a training license from the Ministry of Labour are subject to review by the VRU. 

Reviews are carried out by teams of vocationally-competent, highly trained professionals. The come from varied backgrounds – some have worked in industry, others in government departments or for training providers. There are five full-time review directors and six full-time review specialists, led by an Executive Director. There are currently eight consultant reviewers who work as and when required – this group will eventually number around thirty. Reviewers come from a range of backgrounds, including industry, the training sector, and governmental work. All have direct experience of work-based training and a sound understanding of quality assurance. Between them they have knowledge and credibility in the various curriculum areas covered by Bahrain’s training providers.

Reviewers receive a thorough initial assessment prior to their appointment, and, once selected, attend a rigorous, 3 day training event. They are then mentored at least twice before reviewing independently. This, plus the VRU’s stringent quality assurance arrangements, ensures the security of review judgments.

The size of the review team varies depending on the size and scope of provision, but teams generally comprise between 3 and 6 reviewers. A director of review will lead the review, supported by a team of specialists with expertise in the vocational areas offered by the provider.

The review will take place primarily on the provider’s premises, although members of the team may travel to meet employers or learners. The review team will require a private base room for the duration of the review, where they can consider their findings, examine documentary evidence and hold team meetings. In addition, it is helpful, but not essential, if a small room could be set aside in which the team can conduct interviews.

Providers receive their first notification of their review by email approximately twelve weeks before it takes place. They are not told the exact date at this stage. About eight weeks before the review they are contacted again, and given the precise date of their review.

As a rule, unfortunately not. The VRU works to a tight schedule, and plans review teams well in advance. It is very unlikely that a request to change dates will be accommodated. However, if the provider has compelling reasons to ask for a change of dates, they should write to the Executive Director of the QAAET responsible for vocational review, giving clear reasons for their request.

The review is focused around the experience of the learner, and based upon a Review Framework. This will seek answers to the following questions:

·   are learners developing relevant vocational skills which prepare them effectively for the job market, and gaining appropriate qualifications?

·   are they being well taught/trained?

·   does the provision meet the needs of learners and employers?

·   are learners receiving the necessary personal advice, help or support to enable them to  achieve successfully?

·   is the provision well managed?

·   overall, how effective is the provision in raising achievement and supporting learners, and how strong is the provider’s capacity to improve?

Reviewers will look in detail at some or all of the vocational areas offered by each provider, and at the way the provision is managed. They will observe learning sessions, interview key stakeholder and examine written evidence. They will check providers’ achievement data to establish what proportion of learners complete their courses, and how many gain the qualification they started.

The provider’s active participation is key to the process and essential to ensure that they get the best out of it. When the provider is notified of their review date they are asked to select a nominee to represent them during the review. Whoever is selected should be of sufficient seniority within the organisation to be able to act on the recommendations of the review, and should have sufficient knowledge of the provision to be able to represent it accurately to the review team and deal with their questions.

The nominee will work with the lead reviewer to plan the review. S/he will attend team meetings during the review and contribute to the discussion about emerging findings, identifying additional evidence where appropriate. S/he will read the report, once this is written, and check its accuracy. S/he will lead the provider’s team in acting on the findings and recommendations of the review, and promoting improvement.

Providers are required to complete a self-evaluation form (SEF) each year, giving an honest and objective appraisal of their provision. They are also asked to submit annual data on learners’ achievement and retention. They should ensure that their data, and the SEF, are as up-to-date as possible in preparation for the review. 

The nominee will work closely with the lead reviewer in the run up to the review, planning a suitable programme and identifying evidence sources.

Reviewers identify a series of strengths and areas for improvement for each of the questions above. At the end of the review, they award a grade for each of the questions, using the following scale:

1  outstanding

2  good

3  satisfactory

4  below satisfactory

5  very weak

A report is written, describing the key features, strengths and weaknesses of the provision, giving the grades, and making recommendations for improvement. The report is published on the QAAET’s website. 

All providers are required to write an action plan based on the recommendations from the review. Providers who receive a grade 4, or below, for either their overall effectiveness or their capacity to improve will be subject to a repeat review. This will comprise a series of one-day monitoring visits and, in most cases,  a final, longer visit, and will take place within eighteen months of their first review.

The transparency of the review process is in itself an aid to development. Providers are given detailed, ongoing feedback about what they are doing well, and the areas in which they need to improve. Review reports result in a series of recommendations; providers are required to write an action plan addressing these. The fact that the report is published and given a high profile is also a powerful incentive for improvement.

Providers judged inadequate overall are subject to a repeat review. This is a developmental process which generally takes place over a period of 12-18 months. All providers are also asked to evaluate their own quality and performance on an annual basis.

The VRU, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, Tamkeen and the EDB, has devised a provider improvement strategy which sets out arrangements for offering incentives for better performing providers, giving support to those who are inadequate, using review outcomes as a criterion in the allocation of training contracts, and de-licensing providers who fail to improve over time.

As part of the QAAET the VRU is an independent body which makes impartial judgements. However, we liaise with the Ministry of Labour to provide policy advice on a range of issues related to vocational education and training, and with the Ministry of Labour, Tamkeen and the Specific Councils with regard to provider improvement. The VRU has no responsibilities with regard to accreditation.

For more information about vocational review, please email vru@qaa.edu.bh

The Higher Education Review Unit is one of the four units established within the Quality Assurance Authority for Education and Training (QAAET) in terms of the Royal Decree No 32 of 2008. In Article 4 of the Decree, the QAAET is mandated to ‘review the quality of the performance of education and training institutions in light of the guiding indicators developed by the Authority’.

The five main objectives of the Higher Education Review Unit are to:

·  Enhance the quality of higher education in Bahrain by conducting reviews into the quality assurance arrangements of higher education institutions in the kingdom and identifying areas in need of improvement and areas of strength

·  Conduct programme reviews within higher education to ensure that minimum standards are being met

·  Ensure that there is public accountability of higher education providers through the provision of an objective assessment of the quality of each provider and programmes (Review Reports) for use by parents, students, and the Ministry of Education’s Higher Education Council

·  Promote quality assurance in higher education through (i) facilitating capacity development workshops and related activities; (ii) liaising with the Higher Education Council, industry, business and other stakeholders; and (iii) identifying good practice where it exists and disseminating it throughout the Bahraini higher education sector

·  Serve an advocacy role for Bahrain higher education within the kingdom, the region and internationally.  

1.1Institutional Reviews

In keeping with its mandate, the Higher Education Review Unit is conducting institutional reviews across all higher education institutions operating in Bahrain. The conduct of these external quality reviews is consistent with the Guidelines of Good Practice of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).

The review process will assess the effectiveness of an institution’s quality assurance arrangements against a pre-defined set of quality indicators and through which areas of strength and weakness can be identified. The first review cycle started in May 2008 and will be completed in June 2011.

The Higher Education Review Unit adheres to the principle that the primary responsibility for the quality of provision belongs to the higher education institution itself. The role of the Higher Education Review Unit is to provide external validation of the claims made by a higher education institution in its self-evaluation report submitted as part of its review portfolio. This portfolio forms the basis of the Higher Education quality review. An external Panel of peers and experts in higher education is constituted. The Panel carries out a site visit during which it gathers information which is compared to the claims made in the self-evaluation report and against the Higher Education Review Unit’s 25 review indicators. The Panel then prepares a Review Report which makes judgments about the effectiveness of the institutional quality management systems. The Higher Education Review Unit then takes over the Report and prepares it to go through the various internal approval processes. This Report is approved by the Quality Assurance Authority Board and the Court of the Prime Minister. It is then sent to the Higher Education Council. It is a public document so parents, students and other stakeholders can access the Report on the website of the Quality Assurance Authority for Education and Training.

1.2Programme Reviews

The Higher Education Review Unit undertakes programme reviewsoffered by the higher education institutions. The purpose is to ensure that graduates enter the workplace with the skills and knowledge to be able to contribute to the further economic development of Bahrain. Programme reviews are a specialized exercise, which focus on the quality assurance arrangements within existing learning programmes in a particular disciplinary or subject area. The reviews are carried out by an external panel of peers and specialist using 4 indicators as published in the Programme Review Handbook.  The Report on a programme review will make judgments about whether the programme meets minimum standards as well as make recommendations for the enhancement of the programme. This Report serves at the Quality Assurance Authority Board the Court of the Prime Minister. Once it is approved it is sent to the Higher Education Council. It is a public document so parents, students and other stakeholders can access the Report on the website of the Quality assurance Authority for Education and Training.

1.3Capacity Building

The Higher Education Review Unit also engages in capacity development initiatives. These are designed to improve institutional and individual knowledge of the management of quality assurance in the three core functions of teaching and learning, research and community engagement and thus enable institutions to improve their quality assurance arrangements in their core functions as well as to foster a shared understanding of the Higher Education Review Unit’s quality assurance system.

After going through the review reports approval process of the Quality Assurance Authority for Education and Training, the higher education institutional and programme review reports will be sent to the Higher Education Council for their consideration.

The Higher Education Review Unit is headed by an Executive Director. She has extensive experience in the executive management of higher education institutions and in quality assurance. There are two institutional Review Directors both of whom are respected academics and have considerable experience in quality assurance. There is also a Director for Programme Reviews. The Unit also has two information officers and one liaison assistant.

National examinations provide independent, external standardised tests in the core subjects to all students in government schools at grades 3 and 6 this year, and grade 9 from next year. This means we will have data to give us information on strength and weaknesses of student performance against the curriculum competencies, which in turn will allow planning for improvements in students’ learning and the overall education system.

We can gain insights into how well students perform against the competencies in the national curriculum in the core subjects of Maths, Arabic, Science and English.

The NEU publishes results in a variety of reports: students will receive individual results reports, schools will receive results reports with results for all their students and all their teaching groups (i.e. classes), the Ministry of Education will receive information on all schools’ results. The QAAET will also publish a general report on examination results as part of its annual report. In addition, the NEU will publish principal examiner reports for all grades and subjects with qualitative information on students’ performance in the individual examination papers. These last two reports will also be made available to the public on the QAAET website.

Because the two results report different things. The normalised percentage score means that a student’s results can be compared directly with other Bahraini students at the same grade; and a student’s National Test result can be compared directly with percentage marks in local school tests. The performance score tracks the performance of students between grades 3 and 6, or between grades 6 and 9 (if their performance score is the same in both grades, then they have progressed at the expected rate).

The performance scores are on a scale from 0.0 to 8.0

A score of 8.0 is the highest standard of performance possible.  Almost nobody will get a score of 8.0

A score of 0.0 is the lowest standard of performance possible. Almost nobody will get a score of 0.0

Most students will get a score between 2 and 6

The national average score for each examination has been set at 70 and the standard deviation at 10. The national average will be 70 every year. Most normalised percentage scores will be between 90 and 50 and the spread of marks will be reasonably stable from one year to the next. If a student scores above 70, their marks are above average. If they score below 70, their marks are below average. Very few pupils will have scores below 50. Those who do, will have put in a very weak performance for that subject. Very few students will score above 90. If students score above 90, their mark is outstanding.

Setting the national average at 70 allows a basic comparison with local school test results, as 99% of students will score within three standard deviations of the average, i.e. between 40% and 100%.

A normalised, or standard, score has undergone a statistical procedure in which each set of original scores is converted to a standard scale under the assumption that the distribution of scores approximates that of a normal distribution. The standard score indicates how many standard deviations a result is above or below the mean: the standard deviation is the unit of measurement of the z-score. It allows comparison of results from different normal distributions.

The average national performance score will be anchored at 4.0 in the first year of the national examinations, and will go up or down with students’ performance in future years. It will therefore give an absolute measure of performance over time.

The national average will be defined as 4.0 in the first year, but future years’ tests will be securely anchored to the scale that was set in the first year. The national average of the performance score will not always be the same. If the performance of pupils improves from one year to the next, then the national average performance score will go up. This means that the performance score is an absolute measure.

No, the national average performance score will go up or down every year in line with the actual performance of the student cohort.

The results of the national examinations are not reported as pass or fail grades. Both the normalized percentage score and the performance score are reported against the national average, so students can see how far above or below the national average they are.

The student will not receive a result because he or she was absent, or has had malpractice confirmed.

Some pupils may provide too little evidence for us to be able to award a score. This may sometimes be because they have not tried as hard as they might in the examination. For this reason the lower end of the NPS scale will be ‘capped’. Any mark below 5% of the marks available on the test, will be given ‘no result’ for the NPS.

Yes, on a basic level, the percentages can be compared to give an overall indication of one result against the other. And also no, not directly. This is for a number of reasons: internal assessment results are based on continuous assessment throughout the whole school year, whereas the national examinations show a snapshot in time. Research from other countries shows that internal assessment results always look significantly better than external assessment results. Secondly, internal assessment often concentrates on assessing only the textbook content, whereas the national examinations test the whole curriculum.

This is for a number of reasons: internal assessment results are based on continuous assessment throughout the whole school year, whereas the national examinations show a snapshot in time. Research from other countries shows that internal assessment results always look significantly better than external assessment results. Secondly, internal assessment often concentrates on assessing only the textbook content, whereas the national examinations test the whole curriculum.

The NEU cannot compare the two results, because we only have the data from the national examinations. Only the Ministry of Education can make this comparison.

Need to wait for results here.

The performance score ensures competencies and different skills are on the same ability scale (absolute scale), and so can be directly compared, and are calculated from a representative sample of 10% (initial years) of national cohort

Students did best in Arabic at grade 3, and at grade 6 in Arabic and in Science.

Because The Ministry of Education decided with the QAAET that for the first three years of the national examinations they would not count towards the overall end-of-year results and promotion, as it usually takes about two to three years for new examinations to ‘bed in’. The Ministry has promised to review this at the three-year point.

Because The Ministry of Education decided with the QAAET that initially the national examinations they would not replace the overall end-of-year results and count towards promotion, as it usually takes  a bit of time for new examinations to ‘bed in’. The Ministry has promised to review this in the near future.

The NEU/QAAET will publish individual students’ and schools’ results to those individual students or schools only, and of course to the Ministry of Education. However, they will not be published publicly.

This depends on a number of factors. First of all students, teachers and schools need to take the national examinations very seriously and do their best to succeed, as in all examinations.

In general, examination results tend to improve significantly during the first five years of the life span of an examination. After the first five years, the improvements tend to be much smaller and eventually level out.

Students, teachers and schools need to get used to the new style of examinations and to the fact that they test not just the textbook, but the whole curriculum. This will have an impact on the whole style of learning in schools, which will raise standards and results overall. Once the national examinations are part of the promotion criteria to the next grade students will also make an even bigger effort to get good results and improve.

The national examination results and TIMSS results cannot be compared because they test different things. The national examinations test student performance against Bahrain’s national curriculum. TIMSS

The national examination results and other countries’ national examination results cannot be compared because they test different things. The national examinations test student performance against Bahrain’s national curriculum. Other countries exams test performance against their own curricula, which of course, are different from the Bahraini curriculum. 

This could occur when teachers look at the students’ performance scores / normalised percentage scores on the Teaching Group Report and calculate an average from these.  They may discover that their value does not match the printed average for the teaching group.

The average values printed on the teaching group report are calculated as follows:                         

·   the raw marks for all of the students are averaged first;

·   this average mark is then converted into an equivalent performance score or normalised percentage score.

 So, the teaching group average NPS score isn't an average of the NPS figures reported for each student.  It is not possible to calculate them manually from the results for each student.  

We want to encourage schools and, through them, students to take the new National Examinations seriously.

 We want to ensure that schools do everything they can to encourage their students to attend the tests and to perform to the best of their ability.  Including all students in the averages is a way of rewarding those schools that successfully encourage their students to participate.

 Including absentees in the averages is also a way of preventing schools or individual teachers from encouraging their weaker students to stay away from the tests.

 Students with special needs (including blind, visually impaired and hearing impaired) and students with learning difficulties can still take the tests and special arrangements can be made for them in advance (please refer to the Administration Handbook)  – the only exception is that  students with severe hearing impairment cannot take the Listening tests.  In this way all schools are treated consistently and equitably, and as many students as possible will be able to sit for the tests.

 Some students were not included in the Teaching Group Reports if they had unresolved missing marks. Missing marks happen when no script is submitted and the student was not recorded as absent on the attendance register. These students received Student reports in all cases.

Where a Student Report contains a missing subject, it is likely that this is because there are unresolved missing marks on all papers in that subject. In such cases, if you would like the Student Report to be re-issued with all subjects shown, please submit an Enquiry About Results. The re-issued Student Report will state "no result available" against the subject with missing marks.

Teaching Group Reports and School Reports will not be re-issued.

The SRU is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the quality of the provision of education being offered to learners at all schools, identifying points of strength and areas that need improvement, establishing success measures, spreading best practices and offering policy advice to key stakeholders and Ministry of Education. Following an extensive period of pilot and development work, the SRU commenced its first review cycle by carrying out 50 pilot Reviews from which a great deal was learned. International partners worked alongside a local Bahraini team to establish the School Review Unit and helped to introduce best international practices adopted for Bahrain. The unit seeks to ensure that the quality of education offered must be of an international standard which is a real challenge. 184 schools reviews have been carried out during the last two years and the rest of the schools are expected to be reviewed by the end of the Academic year 2010/2011.

Fair and realistic review carried out by professional teamwork gives schools a great chance to know their points of strength and areas that need improvement. Some schools might be honored by stakeholders if they achieve an outstanding score; others are motivated to achieve better standard through the review recommendations and feedback. Moreover, reviews help to establish a culture of schools' self-evaluation culture that will enable them to achieve better academic performance and better reputation.

There are gains all around, but particularly for:

·  Most teachers of the reviewed school will get feedback about their lessons

·  School Administration will develop a better and clear vision, mission, aims and objectives

·  Employers who will be able to access a better skilled workforce

·  Students who will receive high quality of education

Two hundred and four schools that belong to the Ministry of Education in the kingdom of Bahrain are subject to review by SRU. 

Reviews are carried out by well trained professional specialists who have been subjected to intensive training courses in Bahrain and abroad through visiting Singapore and Hong Kong to exchange experience with experts and professionals. They come from varied backgrounds; All of them worked in the Ministry of Education and were having important posts e.g. (Principals, Deputies, Senior Teachers, Curricula Specialists, Educational advisors, Administrative, Academic or Social supervisors and teachers of different subjects. There are full-time review directors and review specialists including the leads, the unit is directed by a dynamic professional Executive Director (Dr Jo).

Review is a process that is carried out according to professional procedures in agreement with the school administration. During the review, the team has to diagnose the school effectiveness and performance by checking and gathering evidences mainly through class visits, students' academic achievements, students' personal development, observation of the school's activities, checking students' work, holding meeting with principals, deputies, senior teachers, teachers, parents, and students in addition to discussing management and leadership operations and any other related issues are to be recorded as evidences. Principals of schools are daily provided with oral feedback about the progress of the review. Reviews take place over a period of three days. School Self Evaluation (SEF) plays an important role in the process. Points of all the stakeholders are taken into account.

Reviewers receive a thorough initial assessment prior to their appointment, and, once selected, attend rigorous intensive training course. They are then mentored at least twice before being asked to independently reviewing any school.

The size of the review team varies depending on the size of the school and the number of the students, but teams generally consists of 3 reviewers for a school that has up to 200 students, 4 reviewers for a school that has up to 500, and 5 for schools that has up to 800 and for a school that has 1000 or more 6 or 7 reviewers will be in charge of carrying out the review. A leader and a Q.A will lead the review team.

The team will focus on the following points:

* Standards and academic achievements of the students

* Personal development of the students

* Teaching and learning strategies 

* Curriculum enrichment programs

* Support and guidance provided

* Effectiveness of Leadership and management

* Overall effectiveness of the school

Every report will contain a summary of the overall effectiveness of the school and the recommendations about what the school should do to improve. Schools should set an action plan to be implemented in order to achieve better performance. They can seek the help and support from the Ministry of Education.

The review primarily takes place at the school's premises. The review team will require a private base room if possible for the duration of the review (three days) which is chosen by the school's Administration. The team can consider their findings, examine documentary evidence and hold team meetings in it. In addition, it is practical and useful, but not essential, if a small room could be set aside in which the team can conduct interviews

Schools' principals receive their first notification of their review by email approximately twelve weeks ahead of the review. They are not told the exact date at this stage. About eight weeks before the review they are contacted again, and given the precise date of their review.

Unfortunately, it is really impossible to change the scheduled program of school review as the SRU works to a tight schedule, and plans are often set in advance. It is very unlikely that a request to change dates will be accommodated. However, if the school administration has compelling reasons to ask for a change of dates, they should write to the Executive Director of the QAAET responsible for school review, giving clear reasons for their request.

The school administration and members' active participation and co-operation is an essential key to a successful review to ensure that they get the best out of it. When the school is notified of its review date, administration and staff are asked to select a nominee to represent them during the review. Whoever is selected should be of sufficient seniority within the organization to be able to act on the recommendations of the review, and should have sufficient knowledge of the school data to be able to accurately represent it to the review team and deal with their questions.

Schools are required to complete a self-evaluation form (SEF), giving an honest and objective appraisal of their performance. They are also asked to submit annual data about the school and the learners’ backgrounds, achievement and grades. They should ensure that their data, and the SEF, are up-to-date. They will receive (PRB), Pre Review Briefing before the actual review. Schools can appoint a nominee or a team to facilitate the review. The nominee will closely work with the lead reviewer in the run up of the review, planning a suitable program and identifying evidence sources whenever he/she is asked to.

Reviewers identify points of strength and areas that need improvement for each school. At the end of the review, they are awarded the school's grade using the following scale:

(1) = Outstanding
(2) = Good
(3) = Satisfactory
(4) = Inadequate

A report is written by the team and reviewed by the lead, it must describe the key features, points of strength and areas that need improvement at school, giving grades, and making recommendations. The report is published on the QAAET website. All schools are required to write an action plan based on the recommendations of the review. Schools that receive grade 4 for either their overall effectiveness or their capacity to improve will be subjected to a focus review. This comprises a series of one-day monitoring visits and, in most cases, a final longer visit that takes place within 12 months of their first review.

The transparency of the review process is in itself a great aid for development. Schools are given detailed, ongoing feedback about what they are doing, and the areas in which they need to improve. Review reports result in a series of recommendations.

Schools are required to write an action plan addressing these. The fact that the report is published and given a high profile is also a powerful incentive for improvement. . All schools are also asked to evaluate their own quality and performance on an annual basis.

For more information about school review, please check:

www.qaa.edu.bh

This is a matter for the ministry of education to tackle and discuss with the principal a board of directors at schools, however, most schools are expected to show some improvements through their response to the recommendations of the review.

Yes, all reviews of the schools will be published on the net and on the press in the right time. The reports are checked and approved by the QAA Authority board. This will provide valuable information for the Ministry of Education and the stakeholders about how effective and efficient the schools are. The QAA main objective is transparency and publishing all information often has its own merits.

Parents', teachers' and students' role is very important. Before the review, the schools are asked to send (PQ) parents' questionnaire to parents, which must be handed in to the SRU administration for analysis. Parents' responses and cooperation so far is useful and realistic and their feedback is taken into account.

The reviews evaluate schools against a set of objectives criteria. Our aim is not to compare or make a competition between schools. QAAET does not award any certificates or prizes to schools. The SRU main task is to diagnose and check up operations, management and practices that are taking place at schools and write an objective review report to be sent to the school administration, and to the Ministry of Education.

Clear instructions are given to schools' Administration about procedures to be followed in case that they are in disagreement with the review outcome/result. Once the complaint has been received in the right time, the schools' complaint committee will look into the complaint and take the right action.