As Ulf Lundin, EUN’s Executive Director mentioned in his opening speech, this event was the occasion not only to take stock of the work done in the project (from January 2004 to April 2006) but also to discuss about what could be done in the future to develop this initiative further and to ensure that peer learning will continue to be part of future initiatives e.g. in the context of the eTwinning Project.

This report attempts to give a short overview of the discussions and the presentations of the conference. The conference consisted of two sessions: the morning session was devoted to Peer Learning and School development whilst the afternoon session was mainly devoted to Peer Learning and Policy development. Please note that most summaries link to the seminar presentations and to the respective P2P online publications.

An overview of the P2P Project (Roger Blamire) [download ppt]
Roger Blamire, project coordinator and chairman of the conference, presented the aims of the project, the partners involved as well as the impacts and key lessons from the project. Addressing the question ‘why was peer learning used as an instrument for ICT change’ Roger explained that peer learning is part of a wider Commission‘s view about how knowledge can be shared and built and how change in schools can be brought about. But he also pointed out that P2P has shown that often there is no single and concrete answer especially in identifying successful and transferable ICT policies and school practices.

Common framework for the evaluation of ICT in education (Bert Jaap van Oel) [download ppt]
Bert Jaap van Oel from the Dutch Inspectorate for Education spoke about the Peer to Peer Inspectorate Strand and the joint inspection framework development. He explained that inspectors of education from England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Sweden and The Netherlands during an intensive year of peer reviewing worked on a better understanding of the context they work in, of the way they operate during school visits and of the place of ICT in increasing the quality of education. The highpoint of this process was the development of a common framework for the evaluation of ICT in education. According to Bert Jaap, the idea of setting up two triangles was regarded as advantageous in facilitating the peer process especially for balancing similarities and contrasts between the different national systems.

Bert Jaap also noted that as ‘inspection is a solitary profession’, the peer activity led to recognition, inspiration and also reflection on elements that in some cases were taken for granted. As said by Bert Jaap, the development of a common inspection framework is already a big step, especially taken into account the great differences between the countries involved (different roles, mandates, instrumentation and contexts). Therefore-and responding to Pr. John Anderson’s question-the next step would be the use of this framework as a replacement or in addition to existing national ones. This is facilitated by the fact that the framework is open and flexible, open enough to be used in different contexts but also flexible enough to be used as a whole or in parts but respecting all the indicators of each quality area (such as leadership or Infrastructure and resources. Moreover, as Odile de Chalendar, chairman of the EUN’s Steering Committee, pointed out, the common framework is already starting to be used in France. Therefore what seems to be a challenge for the future is to find adequate funding for the framework.

P2P-Inspectorates building a transnational framework for the evaluation of ICT in education (pdf)
The Framework for the evaluation of ICT in education (pdf)

Peer Learning between Schools- Conditions for Success (Bob McCormick) [download ppt]
Bob McCormick, Professor at the Open University, UK, talked about the conditions for successful peer learning between schools. He explained that there is not much literature on peer reviews especially internationally and most of the existing literature is on collaborative professional development. On the other hand peer reviews are a quite complex process taking into account that they involve: pairing schools, matching people, a shared focus, and different models of coordination (from strong direction and involvement to detachment). Reference was also made to the framework developed by the University of Helsinki (Ilomäki, Lakkala) which served as a guide to teachers and principals for peer reviewing. Finally emphasis was put on the elements for successful peer reviews: clear purposes, support to schools and time to know each other, a mutually shared language, an understanding of the differences between educational systems, e-twinning links as well as multiple partners and/or multiple visits.

This was also confirmed by Professor David Wood who noted that the use of triads results in more objectivity and stability of the P2P policy process.

The P2P practice report (pdf)

Self Presentation Models and Peer Review Outcomes (Anja Balanskat) [download ppt]
Anja Balanskat, from European Schoolnet presented the best practices identified in the schools’ self presentations. More specifically, each school participating in the project was asked to present itself online in the Insight schools Gallery with the aim to provide the schools with more recognition and visibility but also with the opportunity to reflect on their own practices and inspiring practices seen elsewhere. After all, as Anja mentioned in her presentation ‘Peer learning only takes place if you do it yourself’. Having compiled the information provided by the schools, Anja highlighted innovative practices taking place in schools and mentioned the difficulties of this reflective process. The schools’ self presentations can also be seen a self reflection versus an outside view as documented in the 14 school visit reports.

The P2P school gallery
The School visit reports

Schools’ Intervention
During the last part of the practice session, representatives from schools that have participated in the project reported on their experiences. More specifically Jean Luc Garcia (Moliere’s College, France), Anu Westermack (Mäntymäen koulu, Finland) Pia Lindroos (Tikkakosken Koulu, Finland) and Kathleen Gormley (St Cecilia's College, Northern Ireland), have taken the floor and talked about the lessons that their participation to the peer visits has taught them. They all confirmed that peer learning is a source of inspiration and a means of spreading innovation and admitted that this was a very rewarding experience for them both professionally as well as personally. However, they agreed that changes are not implemented immediately after the visit but usually the peer reviews have a long term impact on the organisation, teaching methods, or the ICT policy of the schools. As Mrs. Gormley pointed out: ‘A year later we are still learning a lot from the visit’.

As far as the difficulties that participants have faced, some mentioned the language factor as an important issue that prevented them from getting a deeper insight into the schools’ everyday reality. Moreover given that school visits lasted two to three days, there was not enough time to study deeply the visiting school. Quoting Mrs. Gormley: ‘It is hard to be a critical friend in two days. The visit only set the scene, built a type of relationship…but there is the need to continue the visits and go deeper’. Indeed, it was a common remark from the schools taking the floor that there should be further development of the project, including even more schools.

At that point, Odile De Chalendar confirmed that it is important to follow up and suggested to organise meetings at national level, bringing the partners and other stakeholders together with the aim to disseminate the results and impact back home. Moreover, Ella Kiesi from the Finnish National Board of Education noted that although the matching process was not easy, the peer visits were a success and thus she recommended that eTwinning partners become peer reviewers.

(Listen to Mrs. Gormley’s interview about her experience in the project)

P2P as a tool for policy development (David Wood, University of Nottingham) [download ppt]
During the first part of the afternoon session, Pr. David Wood focused on the role of P2P as an instrument for policy development. In his presentation David talked about the design and analysis of the P2P process and emphasised that role reversal is an important element as changing roles enhances objectivity and empathy, de-centration from the immediate context and also establishes good conditions for learning. The P2P policy reviews should also be further developed as part of professional development programmes for policy makers. David also presented the main findings from the three peer to peer reviews (Finland, France and N. Ireland) that were designed to enhance the understanding and management of policy transfer across national borders and concluded by addressing the question of ‘what should the P2P process yield’.

P2P as a tool for policy development (pdf)
Policy Peer reviews, ICT in schools: France (pdf)
Policy Peer reviews, ICT in schools: Northern Ireland (pdf)
Policy Peer reviews, ICT in schools: Finland (pdf)

Group Discussion Session
Finally a group discussion session took place, during which participants formed three groups. Each group which was chaired by the national coordinators from Finland (Ella Kiesi), France (Odile de Chalendar) and N. Ireland (John Anderson) was asked to comment on challenging statements that had been distributed to them from Roger Blamire to provoke discussion. The list of the sometimes ‘provocative’ statements distributed to the participants can be found below. 

• Schools do not need to go abroad for peer learning; there is enough to learn at home
• Schools need expert help to self- and peer-review; it does not happen naturally
• There are more effective ways to bring about institutional change than peer learning
• Peer reviewing impacts more on management and administration and ICT provision than on teaching and learning practices
• School review reports do not influence other schools
• Best practice in one country is not best practice in another
• Schools are too culturally and nationally contextually embedded to adopt practices from other countries
• eTwinning is a form of peer learning
• Leading edge schools benefit most from peer learning
• Ministry peer learners fail to impact back home
• Ministries tend to copy apparent successes in other countries
• Ministries follow untested fashion, e.g. target-setting, personalisation
• Policy peer review reports have no impact
• Policy-makers learn better from reports and conferences than peer review visits
• Policy-making peer review visits are not cost-effective
• Ministries can be paired more easily than schools
• Learning from each other is no more than recycling old ideas
• Peer learning lacks academic rigour

The workshop was closed by Roger Blamire who paid tribute to the team who helped organise the conference and the participants who made the project a success, with some real breakthroughs in knowledge and understanding.

If you wish to receive printed P2P publications, please send an email to paul.gerhard@eun.org.

For more information on the project visit the P2P project website http://p2p.eun.org.