Report and Wire-O -...

The Primary School of Greenland Evaluation 2015

The Primary school of Greenland

Evaluation 2015

The Primary school of Greenland

© 2015 The Danish Evaluation Institute

Quote provided the source is allowed

The publication is only published electronically

at: www.eva.dk and www.naalakkersuisut.gl

ISBN (www) 978-87-7958-811-0

Photo: Helene Brochmann

Content

Summary 7

1 Introduction 10 1.2 Reading Guide 12

2 The Teaching 15 2.1 The Teaching in Practice 15

2.2 Differentiated Teaching – Based on the Individual Student 16

2.2.1 Differentiation Based on the Students’ Individual Action Plans 16

2.3 Flexible Organisation and Interdisciplinary Teaching 17

2.3.1 Interdisciplinary Teaching 18

2.3.2 Summary and Assessment – Flexible Organisation and Interdisciplinary Teaching 20

2.4 Effective Teaching Principles 20

2.5 Observations of the Teaching 22

2.5.1 The Observed Teaching Can Be Divided into Three Categories 23

2.5.2 The Five Principles Used in Teaching 25

2.5.3 Danish Teachers – no Common Language with the Students 27

2.5.4 Summary and Assessment – the Observed Teaching 28

2.6 Effective Teaching Principles – the Communication Became too Simplified 28

2.6.1 Home Rule Initiatives 28

2.6.2 The Teachers Conceived It Differently 29

2.6.3 Courses and Tools for Effective Teaching Principles 31

2.6.4 Summary and Assessment - The Dissemination of the Effective Teaching Principles 31

2.7 The Teachers: Good Principles – Difficult in Practice 31

2.7.2 Summary and Assessment – the Teachers’ use of Effective Teaching Principles 34

2.8 The Leaders Support - But Make No Demands 34

2.8.1 Summary and Assessment – the Leaders’ Opinion of Effective Teaching Principles 36

2.9 The Significance of the Effective Teaching Principles 36

2.10 Institute of Learning and the Effective Teaching Principles 37

2.11 Summary and Assessment – the Teaching 38

3 Objective and Evaluation 41 3.1.1 New Tools to Work Based on Objectives and Evaluation 41

3.2 Learning Objectives 42

3.2.1 To Work Based on Learning Objectives 42

3.2.2 Are the Learning Objectives Realistic? 43

3.2.3 Different Perception of what Learning Objectives are 45

3.2.4 Inerisaavik on the Learning Objectives 45

3.2.5 Summary and Assessment – Learning Objectives 45

3.3 The Students’ Individual Action Plans 46

3.3.1 Application of Action Plans 46

3.3.2 The Parents and Angusakka 51

3.3.3 Summary and Assessment – The Students’ Individual Action Plans 51

3.4 Level Tests and Other Evaluation 52

3.4.1 Overall Use of the Level Test Results 53

3.4.2 Level Tests as Evaluation 53

3.4.3 Level Tests in a Forward-Looking Perspective 54

3.4.4 Level Tests as a Support Measure for the Individual Student 55

3.4.5 Administration of Level Tests 55

3.4.6 On-going Evaluation 55

3.4.7 The Significance of Evaluation 56

3.4.8 Summary and Assessment – Level Tests and On-going Evaluation 57

4 The Students 60 4.1 Students with Inappropriate Behaviour 60

4.1.2 Assessment – Students with Inappropriate Behaviour 61

4.2 Children with Special Needs 62

4.2.1 Children with Special Needs – in the Optics of the Teachers 63

4.3 The Special Education 64

4.3.1 Organisation of the Special Education 65

4.3.2 Inclusion 66

4.3.3 Competences for Special Education 67

4.3.4 The Teachers on Children in Need of Special Education 68

4.4 Neglected Children 68

4.4.1 A Task for the Social Services - or for the Support Functions at the School? 69

4.5 Support Functions for Children with Special Needs 70

4.5.1 PPR – Pedagogical Psychological Counselling 70

4.5.2 The Counselling Teacher 71

4.6 Summary and Assessment – the Students 72

5 The Teachers 73 5.1 Generally on Cooperation 73

5.2 The Level Cooperation 75

5.3 The Cooperation between Greenlandic and Danish Teachers 78

5.4 Replacement and Absence among the Teaching Staff 79

5.5 Efforts for Better Collaboration 82

5.6 The Teachers - Assessment 84

6 The Parents 86 6.1 The School’s Assessment of the Parents’ Commitment 87

6.1.1 Commitment in the School 87

6.1.2 The Teachers’ and Leaders’ Explanations of the Challenges 89

6.1.3 The Parents and Atuarfitsialak 90

6.1.4 The Teachers’ Own Role 91

6.2 The Parents’ Perspective 91

6.3 Suggestions for Solutions: a Specific and Positive Approach 93

6.3.2 Parents and Homework 95

6.4 Institute of Learning on the Role of the Parents 95

6.5 The Role of the School Board in the Parent Collaboration 95

6.6 Summary and Assessment – the Role of the Parents 96

7 The School Management 98 7.1 The Frame and Scope of the Management 98

7.2 Collaboration with Municipality and Administrative Authorities 101

7.3 The Competences of the Leaders 104

7.4 The Tasks and Challenges of the Management 106

7.5 The Teachers’ View on the Management 109

7.6 The School Management - Assessment 113

8 The School Administrations 115 8.1 The Municipalities’ Administration of the School Section 115

8.2 Local Electives 117

8.3 Supervision of the Schools 119

8.4 Supervision of Students not Following the Teaching of the Primary school 120

8.5 The Municipality's Role in Time Allocation and the Organisation of Teaching 121

8.6 Supplementary Teaching 122

8.7 The Role of the School Boards 122

8.8 The School Administrations - Assessment 126

9 Other Themes 128 9.1 Teacher Competences and Competence Development 128

9.1.1 The Use of the Institute of Learning for the Competence Development of the Teachers 130

9.2 Teaching Materials and IT 131

9.2.1 IT in the Teaching 131

9.3 Teaching Foreign Languages – Danish and English 132

9.3.1 Teaching Danish 133

9.3.2 Teaching English 134

10 The Receiving Schools 137 10.1 The Receiving Schools 137

11 Applied Method 139 11.1 Questionnaire Surveys 139

11.2 Review by the Municipalities 146

11.3 Interviews 146

11.4 Employees 148

11.5 Applied Materials 149

Appendiks Appendix A: Project Description1 150

The Primary school of Greenland 7

Summary

This is an evaluation of the school reform launched as a parliamentary regulation in 2002, later changed to the Primary School Act in 2012. The evaluation assesses, through a variety of points of impact, the extent to which the law has been implemented in practice and offers reasons in areas it has not been implemented. Including identifying the themes or issues, the actors in and around the primary school should pay particular attention to in the further development of the school.

The Relevance, Context and Target Group of the Report 11 years have passed since the new Primary School Act came into force, and the first year group

to go through its entire schooling under the new act has finished, making it an excellent oppor-

tunity to evaluate the reform. At the same time, a persistent problem with weak academic results

and the fact that only an estimated four out of ten students continue education after completing

primary school are good reasons to scrutinise the primary school.

The school reform was subjected to an interim evaluation in 2010 in the form of a conference where all the key players discussed the school with each other. This report communicates the re-sults of the first independent, overall assessment of the school reform.

There are many target audiences for the report. As the evaluation looks into both the legislation and the implementation thereof, including Inerisaavik’s (the Parliament’s) role, the administration by the municipalities, the school management, the school-home cooperation and on the teach-ers' training and cooperation, the actors at all these levels are able to retrieve information and as-sessments that can inspire to improve practice.

Results This is an evaluation of the Primary School Act – and thereby of the primary school. But the pri-

mary school is not just an expression of what the act says. It is evident in the most general find-

ings of the evaluation, namely that none of the many interviewed at all levels have been critical of

the act. No one suggests that something is inappropriate, limiting or incorrectly conceived. How-

ever, when so many shortcomings can be identified in the practice of the primary school, it is

likely not due to the inappropriateness of the act, but rather that the intentions of the act have

not been respected.

The fact that explicit criticism of the act has not been formulated is obviously not an indication of

a lack of weak points that one might ascertain easier when being an outsider than if you yourself

are working within and with the system. At the overall administrative level, it is, for example,

striking that municipalities are very far from lifting the political, strategic and educational role in

the primary school imposed on them by the act. If law and practice must be consistent here, you

have to either equip the municipal administrations or move their tasks, i.e. gather some of them

nationally and/or place some of them in the hands of the schools. Given that this school system

has less than 8,000 students in total, it may be a better use of resources if the responsibility for

the overall educational development and strategy is placed under one roof for the whole country.

Other conclusions:

1 Essentially the school reform has been a completely new approach to teaching. According to

the Primary School Act, education must correspond to the individual student's needs, accom-

modate challenges for all students and be organised taking into account the objectives and

the teacher and students must work together to determine the student's action plans. The


evaluation shows that this has not been the dominant way of working within the school. It is

a minority of the teachers who plan their lessons based on the students' action plans. The ma-

jority takes a starting point in the learning objectives, but not as individual objectives of each

student – rather, they are used more traditionally as teaching plans. There are not many at-

tempts at differentiated teaching in the observed teaching except in its simple form, which

consists of each student working with his/her own math book. Effective Teaching Principles

have only been implemented to a limited extent. They have been introduced as a proposal as

how to work specifically based on the clauses of the Primary School Act regarding the base

and organisation of the teaching. Thus, it is important to be aware that the unsatisfactory ac-

ademic results, which is the general consensus, delivered by the primary school, cannot be as-

cribed as the result of the Effective Teaching Principles or the school reform as such. The new

approaches are simply used insufficiently in order to have any significance.

2 The school reform introduced many new tools for planning and evaluating the teaching –

learning objectives, action plans, evaluation of educational achievements etc. The evaluation

shows that these tools have been put into use and have become a part of the work process –

for a number of the teachers. 40 % of the educated teachers have for instance answered that

they have altered their teaching as a result of the findings of the evaluation of educational

achievements. At the same time there are also teachers who do not use these results, in some

cases due to technical/practical obstacles. The on-going evaluation of the teaching as required

by law is far from commonplace. The overall impression is that an evaluation system has been

built up that can work in practice, but in most places yet to be systematically and generally

widespread. An estimate of approximately one third of the teachers do not take a systematic

approach to evaluating.

3 More than half of the teachers, who gave their take on what the three biggest challenges of

the schools are in the questionnaire, mention the students. Especially in relation to inappropri-

ate and negative behaviour, lack of motivation, but also with the academic level that is hard

to elevate and social problems brought into the school making it difficult to carry out the

teaching. It is clear that social problems and lack of resources confront the schools with major

challenges. Both teachers and employees within the Pedagogical Psychological Counselling

area (PPR) indicate that teachers lack training when it comes to children with special needs.

There is also a need for a clarification of what the individual teacher should take care of, what

the school should take care of and what the tasks of the social services and PPR are. Teachers

must be supported so they are not left in doubt. But at the same time, the evaluation under-

lines that school leaders, teachers and policy makers share a common task of creating appro-

priate learning environments that can accommodate and motivate the children at hand. It is

important that teachers do not regard children as problematic in themselves, but acknowl-

edges that even the school contributes to creating the children who cause problems.

4 Teachers themselves tell that cooperation among the teachers in many places is a challenge.

They often point to lack of cooperation as an explanation of things that are not working

properly - the implementation of Effective Teaching Principles, the transitions between levels,

interdisciplinary teaching, etc. The fact that lessons are cancelled due to the absence of teach-

ers is a problem the parents are well aware of. It is very much an issue that school manage-

ment should focus on improving. To the extent, it is planned absences (e.g. in connection

with training), you can use flexible plans. But when it comes to sick leave, Danish experiences

indicate that focusing on this in itself can reduce absenteeism. In some cases, it may also be

associated with poor psychosocial working environment - which to a high degree relates to

cooperation. The leaders have to take the lead here, but teachers also have a great responsi-

bility for contributing to this project.

5 School leaders expressed a fairly high degree of satisfaction with their working conditions,

with management support and with their own skills though many of them work many hours,

and several also suggested that with more routine and experience, they would have more en-

ergy to look into educational management as opposed to today where they are extremely

busy with administration. However, approximately one third of the teachers in the survey are

quite critical of their leaders' ability to communicate, show direction, be inspiring, etc. It is a


challenge that leaders have to deal with. Thus, from the interviews it also appears that some

leaders and employees misunderstand each other. The leaders want the teachers to take re-

sponsibility and would like to give them flexibility and participation in the decision-making,

while teachers see it as a lack of leadership and demand more clarity and direction.

6 Local education authorities in the municipalities function as indicated in the introduction pre-

dominantly as administrative units that handle the economy, employment law and other for-

malities. And apparently, they do this very well. The problem is that the Primary School Act

has assigned them a much larger task of working educationally-strategically with the schools.

This task is not handled today. The statutory supervision is also very infrequent. This is hardly

ill will or indifference from any party but a natural consequence of the fact that, at least in

three of the municipalities, only two employees have been assigned to the task. It is obvious

that it puts a limit on how much they can reach beyond the more administrative tasks they -

as the area is organised today - have to undertake.

7 Parents play an important role in the life of the school child, and it is a big issue for the teach-

ers who feel that parental involvement in their children's schooling in general is problemati-

cally low. 65 out of 203 teachers mention it in the survey as one of the three biggest chal-

lenges of the school. At the same time, there are committed parents who are extremely criti-

cal of what the school has to offer their children. The evaluation points to the necessity of a

much more clarified reconciliation of expectations between school, teacher and home. Parent

meetings must have a genuine and meaningful content so that parents will find it worthwhile

coming. If they have a negative view of the school, one must be aware of showing them

something positive - not reinforce it by berating them. Many teachers have good ideas about

this, but it should be broadened and made widely practiced. Inerisaavik has long since pro-

duced manuals to support this work, and information concerning these can with advantage

be disseminated.

The Data The report is based on these data sources:

• Questionnaire survey among all school leaders

• Questionnaire survey among all teachers

• Written submissions from school administrations in the four municipalities

• Visits at twelve schools across the country, in towns and villages, including interviews with

leaders and teachers and observations of the teaching.

• Interviews with the school governors in the four municipalities

• Interviews with PPR in the four municipalities

• Interviews with parents in the four municipalities

• Interviews with leaders and teachers from three GUXs (ed. upper secondary schools) and two

vocational training programmes.


1 Introduction

In 2003, Parliament Regulation no. 8 of 21 May 2002 on the primary school came into force in

Greenland after years of thorough preparation with the involvement of international experts,

conferences for all stakeholders and popular hearings. 11 years have since passed and the first

year group of students to spend their entire primary school years under the new act has com-

pleted, making it an excellent opportunity to evaluate the reform. At the same time, a persistent

problem with weak academic results and the fact that only about every third student continues

training after primary school suggest, there are good reasons to scrutinise the primary school.

The Ministry of Education, Church, Culture and Gender Equality within the Government of

Greenland (IIKNN) has, in collaboration with the Association of Municipalities, KANUKOKA, and

the teachers' union, IMAK, given EVA the task of implementing such an evaluation.

Aim

The evaluation will shed light on the current practice of the primary school in order to assess the

quality of the education and caregiving of the schools. Quality is understood as the contribution

of the schools for the students to learn and develop as much as possible in a number of areas, cf.

the purpose clause of the Primary School Act. The students' benefit from teaching is thus a key

quality parameter, but it should not be considered as an effect outcome. In this connection, it

should furthermore be emphasised that the evaluation does not look at the academic content or

level. This task is continuously carried out by Inerisaavik's evaluation department that follows the

results of educational evaluations and final tests, etc.

The basis of evaluation is, therefore, the Primary School Act (previously the Parlimentary Regula-

tion) and remarks thereto. How is the act perceived by the key actors within the school system?

And how is it implemented? In addition, topics indicated as less effective or appropriate by the

conducted questionnaire surveys and interviews will be discussed.

Thus, the evaluation looks at the structures of the school and the practical implementation of the teaching. The evaluation takes into account and highlights the major differences between schools and municipalities, but is not institutional evaluation. The participating schools are there, where we have conducted the interviews and observations, and thus are the sources of the qualitative data of the evaluation.

The purpose of the evaluation is to provide a state of affairs and make prospective plans for

points of attention, i.e. issues that should be discussed and if necessary adjusted. The purpose of

the evaluation is not a new reform.

Focus of the evaluation had the following seven headlines:

1 Organisation • Overall / central level

• Municipal level

• School level.

2 Organisation and Completion of the Teaching • Teaching methods, including Effective Teaching Principles

• Materials

• Foreign languages: Danish and English


• Additional teaching and mother tongue teaching

• Interdisciplinary teaching with special focus on subject assignments and project assign-

ments

• Cancellations of the teaching - scope and reasons.

3 The Work on Aims and Evaluation

• Action plans and documentation

• The use of educational objectives, subject objectives and work on learning objectives

• Continuous evaluation

• Differentiated teaching

• The final tests (how are relevance and level perceived?).

4 The Teachers • Teacher qualifications and how they are used

• Competence development

• Work environment

• Special focus on the new teachers.

5 The Management • Structures and latitude

• The competences of the management including opportunities for competence develop-

ment

• Tasks and organisation.

6 Children with Special Needs • Initiatives at school level

• Inclusion

• Special education

• PPR (ed. Pedagogical Psychological counselling).

7 School-Home Cooperation

The paragraph of the report does not follow the structure of these headlines, but takes a starting

point in the teaching in the classroom as the centre and continues in the “upwards” direction –

to aims and evaluation, the students, the teachers, the parents, the school management and the

Municipal administrations.

The School Reform

The new Primary School Act (called ’Regulation’ at the adoption in 2002, later ’Primary School

Act’ following the revision in 2012) included in many ways significant innovations in relation to

the former regulation. The name Atuarfitsialak, ‘The Good School’ was already the work title

when the development work began and later became the headline of the reform. In a booklet for

the parents, it is described in this way:

Atuarfitsialak

The regulation is based on a learning perspective that contains a wide range of values

and competences there is a wish for students to develop. Competences such as: Ability to

work independently and to work together, to have self-esteem and to respect other peo-

ple’s values and opinions, to be rooted in their own culture and to have insight into and

understanding of other cultures, and to understand their own and others responsibilities in

relation to maintaining and further developing our democratic society.

Continues on next page …


… continued from previous page

The learning perspective is based on the fact that each student is an entirely unique per-son, which implies that the teaching is based on the individual student in recognition that children learn in different ways.

These values are built into the teaching plan’s mandatory learning objectives and in the

indicative teaching and evaluation proposals. In all subjects and subject areas, autonomy

and cooperation, own and other cultures as well as the consideration of the individual stu-

dent and the class as a whole are included. Thus, the respect for the individual and the

democratic societies are common themes from the regulation’s overall aims through na-

tional learning objectives, objectives of the subjects and teaching objectives.

The evaluation has a special focus on the parts of the Primary School Regulation / Act, which

were new in 2002.

1.2 Reading Guide Chapter 2 – The Teaching – describes on the basis of the principles on which the Primary School

Act is based how the teaching observed in the evaluation is conducted. The teaching is analysed

to uncover the degree to which the new Primary School Act has influenced the activities of the

classroom. Subsequently, the degree of the use of the Effective Teaching Principles will be exam-

ined. They are not a part of the legislation itself, but should be viewed as an attempt to create a

specific, pedagogical superstructure. Therefore, the views of the teachers and the leader are

highlighted on the principles and their explanations why these have not become more wide-

spread than the case is.

Chapter 3 – Aims and evaluation – describes some of the most important elements of the Primary

School Reform, namely that teaching should be organised based on learning objectives, and a

continuous evaluation of the teaching must take place, including the use of level tests. The chap-

ter examines whether this is happening and to the attitude of the teachers and parents to these

elements.

Chapter 4 – The Students – initially this chapter describes the teachers’ view on the students’ be-haviour and learning readiness. Subsequently, the teachers’ and leaders’ view of what the school has to offer children with special needs, understood as children with permanent disabilities and children who, for instance due to negligence, have difficulties attending the ordinary teaching. Thus, it concerns both special education and other support services. The role and perspective of the PPR on the subject will be included. Chapter 5 – The Teachers – focuses on the teachers’ cooperation in particular, because it is cen-tral to how the schools work, and it is an issue that the teachers themselves often point out as being problematic. We look at the structures of the cooperation, for instance the level teaching of the school, the relations between Danish and Greenlandic teachers, replacement and absence. Chapter 6 – The Parents – deals with a theme that is very important in the current school debate, namely the responsibility of parents that students are ready for school and receive the necessary support. Chapter 7 – The School Management – is the last chapter about the school itself. Through the preceding chapters we have drawn a faceted picture of the challenges the leaders have - central themes they have to relate to in their management of the school. In this chapter, we therefore look at their possibilities for doing this and on their approaches to the tasks. Finally, we look at the teachers' assessment of the school management. Chapter 8 – Administration and school – looks at the overall structure of the school, which the municipalities should formulate, including how schools are supervised. Through interviews with the administrations and KANUKOKA, we analyse how this task is met.


Chapter 9 – Other Themes - explains the other topics that the evaluation has had to illuminate, but which have proven difficult to obtain useful data for with the available data sources; includ-ing teachers' competences and competence development, teaching materials and the teaching of Danish and English. Chapter 10 – The Further Educational Programmes – describes the feedback, which GUX and the vocational educational programmes can provide the primary school.

Chapter 11 – Applied Method – explains how the evaluation is implemented, the staff who par-

ticipated and the applied published material.

Appendix: Table Report. The evaluation is based, among other things, on two major question-

naires for school leaders and teachers. The answers to all questions can be read in the Table Re-

port. Only selected tables that we consider to provide significant information are included in this

report, others are only referred to for the sake of clarity in the text.

Almost all questionnaire replies are divided into town schools and village schools. We have also investigated whether there is a difference between how teachers with and without teacher train-ing respectively respond and how teachers with a Greenlandic and Danish teacher training re-spectively respond. In those cases, where there is an interesting difference in the distribution of responses in the two groups, these tables are also shown in Chapter 3 of the Table Report. If there is no difference, the table is not included, but it is mentioned in the text if a difference could have been expected.

Concepts of the School Reform – Atuarfitsialak, The Good School

The school reform was adopted in the Parliament as a regulation in 2002 and entered into force in 2003. When the regulation was revised in 2010, it was following the introduction

of the Self-Government, and the regulation had now become an act on the Primary School.

In the report, the different concepts are used interchangeably, as they are quotes from in-

terviews, questionnaires, etc. Hence, unless otherwise stated, the Atuarfitsialak, the reform,

the regulation and the Primary School Act are perceived as the same.


Schools in Greenland

Nuussuup Atuarfia, the school in Nuussuaq, Nuuk

Avanersuup Atuarfia, the school in Qaanaaq

Ivilikasiup Atuarfia, the school in Ikamiut


2 The Teaching

A key element of the school reform was new principles for the students' learning and teaching.

The Act states in §18: ” The teaching must be varied to match the needs and prerequisites of

each student”, and ”It is the responsibility of the school leader to ensure that the teaching is

planned and organised in such a way it presents challenges for all students.”

These principles, in slogan form also called "The Student in the Centre" (e.g. in the discussion

paper Atuartoq qitiullugu/The Student in the Centre, one of four newspapers that were issued as

part of the extensive hearings and debates leading to the adoption of the Act), all require a form

of teaching in which the teacher not only "delivers" a substance to the whole class at once, but

works with differentiated adjustment.

In order to do this, the teacher has to know the individual student's prerequisites and progres-

sion, and therefore, §19 of the Act stipulates that the student "in consultation with his/her teach-

ers (develops) an action plan that forms part of the on-going evaluation (... ) And form the basis

for the student's further education and training."

Thus, in the evaluation of the teaching, it is first and foremost looked upon whether the princi-

ples of education and training in the Primary School Act corresponding to the needs and prereq-

uisites of the individual student are met - that is, whether the teaching is differentiated and based

on the students' individual action plans.

A couple of years after the adoption of the law, a quality council consisting of international ex-

perts recommended Inerisaavik to find and develop a teaching method that could effectively

translate the new principles into practice. Here, the choice fell on the so-called Effective Teaching

Principles.

Knowing that Effective Teaching Principles are not part of the Act, and thus not something the

teachers must apply, a large part of the chapter is devoted to investigating whether they have

been put into practice. This is based on the view that teachers, by using Effective Teaching Princi-

ples, can provide teaching that is in accordance with the educational basis of the Act. In addition,

considerable resources have been spent on educating teachers in these principles, and research

has shown that the principles are particularly suitable for the education of risk groups, i.e. chil-

dren who, because of their social or cultural background, are at risk of not completing their

schooling with satisfactory results. It's important to find out if this effort has been successful -

and if not, what the reason is.

2.1 The Teaching in Practice In this section we look at how the teaching actually takes place at the schools visited. We investi-

gate whether the teaching is "working" and whether we can identify the principles of the Pri-

mary School Act in use. We also look at whether the Effective Teaching Principles are used in the

teaching.

The observations have shown a great span of teaching, from something very well-functioning

with high energy levels, clearly engaged students and clear academic content to the opposite. In

some of the observed lessons, we were able to identify Effective Teaching Principles in use, in

others not.


The observations have also shown that educated teachers, both Greenlandic and Danish, can

teach at both ends of the scale.

In the 12 visited schools, observations of the teaching have been made. In two schools, two les-

sons have been observed. Thus in total, we have material from 14 teaching lessons. All observed

teachers apart from one were educated teachers, and there were both Danish and Greenlandic

teachers. All levels have been visited, and teachings in Greenlandic, Danish, mathematics, local

electives and social studies have been observed. Focus has been on the content and structure of

the teaching and on the learning environment in the class. After conducting 12 of the observa-

tions, we made an interview with the teacher. The interview focused on the teacher's goals for

the specific lesson and the teacher's assessment of the course of the lesson.

2.2 Differentiated Teaching – Based on the Individual Student

If you are to meet the expectation of an education based on the individual student, you have to

work with differentiated teaching.

Differentiated teaching is not just about taking into consideration that some students work and

understand faster than others or are at different academic levels. Nor is it a particular method or

model for the organisation of teaching. In the understanding of the concept, which is widely

used by researchers and in educational knowledge environments in Denmark, and as explained,

for example, in the EVA report "Differentiated Teaching as a Key Principle of Pedagogy", five fac-

tors are set up which teachers should consider to vary and customise to ensure a teaching that

works for the individual student. These five factors are:

• Content (topics, themes)

• Methods (which, for instance, appeal to different ways of learning)

• Organisation (group division, team division, teaching based on workshops, in pairs, roles)

• Materials (types, degree of difficulty)

• Time (short and long projects, shifts)

In the questionnaires, the teachers have been asked whether they work with differentiated teach-

ing, and 91% say they do (Table Report, section 2.8, table 44). However, the interviews show

that not all teachers have the same perception of what this term covers. Many consider it as syn-

onymous with "individual" teaching, e.g. giving students different tasks according to their level.

A teacher from a town school describes it, by example, in this way: "The fast ones get extra

work. Those who did not finish the task get homework. I also divide groups by level or use pair-

work, where the one who is finding it easy can help the one who is finding it hard.” It is also

quite common and necessary practice in the village schools, where classes often consist of three

year groups. But differentiated teaching is much more than that.

There are very few teachers - a total of 36 - who have answered that they do not work with dif-

ferentiated teaching. Their reasons for it are very different and nothing can be concluded from

them. (Table Reports, section 2.8, table 46).

2.2.1 Differentiation Based on the Students’ Individual Action Plans

In order to differentiate the teaching, one has to know what the prerequisites, challenges and

goals that each students have. To this end, students and teachers must cooperate in setting goals

for the student, as well as working methods, methods and choice of materials must be selected

in collaboration (section 18 of the Primary School Act). Specifically, the students must prepare an

action plan in collaboration with his/her teachers (§19). The action plan has more functions - it

must be used in the ongoing evaluation and as a tool to raise awareness of the student's own

learning, and this is described in more detail in chapter 3. But it should also be the teacher's tool

in planning the teaching: "Teaching is organised so that students' goals [in the action plan] are

met."1

1 Guide to the Home Rule Order No. 2 of 9 January 2009 on evaluation and documentation in the Primary School, p. 6.


In section 3.3 on the students' individual action plans, the work on these is described thoroughly.

It is apparent here that it is by far all students who make action plans in all subjects and only

26% of the teachers have both answered that at least half of their students make action plans

twice a year and that they always use them in the organisation of their teaching. 47% do it

"sometimes".

In the interviews with the teachers, it is especially the pedagogical function of the action plans of

the students that is in focus, and only two teachers say specifically that they base the planning of

their teaching on the students' action plans (more about this in section 3.2.1).

To the extent that the teaching is based on the individual student - generally speaking - it is usu-

ally not based on the students' action plans.

2.3 Flexible Organisation and Interdisciplinary Teaching §5 of the Primary School Act stipulates that the students "are taught in subject divided and inter-

disciplinary courses in changing groups composed of students from one or more classes of the

year group according to the individual student's needs and interest in relation to the learning ob-

jectives". The booklet Atuarfitsialak - Methods and Tools (Inerisaavik 2003) describes the possibili-

ties of a very wide-ranging flexible organisation of teaching, where teachers at each level can pre-

pare a schedule for the allocation of lesson in terms of teachers, themes, groups, etc. during the

semester. These include:

Planning according to the annual norm also means that the annual number of lessons can be settled in very different and very flexible ways during the school year and therefore not just as a weekly norm or a defined school schedule. It allows for switching between peri-ods in which a subject area has many lessons for projects that require time for reflection and where they are taught in shorter periods of time and in subject-related courses. It also allows for the team of teachers at the individual levels to agree upon the number of les-sons in which the individual subjects are to be included in project work, workshop teach-ing and interdisciplinary teaching (§9, item 4 of the Regulation). Of course, it should be based on learning objectives.

The evaluation did not find examples of the schools working on planning in this way. Overall,

teaching is organised as "one class - one teacher - one lesson", sometimes interrupted by project

weeks, which is included in the plan for the whole school. The number varies greatly from school

to school. For example, some interviews show that some have project week once a year, some

twice, and at one school they have four times a year at the junior and intermediate levels and

two to four times a year at senior level. The intermediate level also had workshop teaching for an

entire month. Some project weeks are interdisciplinary, others focus on one subject.

Teachers' views on the subject-oriented or project-oriented teaching that departs from the tradi-

tional schedule are different. Overall, one can say that some are positive about it and have good

experiences. Some would like to do more, but find it difficult to implement or time-consuming or

have the belief that it is the schedule that prevents them from doing so. Others do not think it

works well from a pedagogical point of view.

As an example of how difficult it is to implement, a teacher tells that it was three years since he

last completed a project-oriented teaching process, because it takes time to prepare - "but then,

it is very good, the students like it."

At one school particularly, teachers express that it is the schedule that provides some bindings

that prevent them from making project weeks and interdisciplinary teaching. One teacher would

like a more flexible planning, but experience resistance: "People here would like to have the con-

fidence [in the fixed schedule]." Another teacher at the same school says it's "hard to find the

time for it" and that it ”requires planning".


Other teachers are more sceptical. For example, a teacher at the junior level believes that there

are too many project days, so the students get confused: "It's scary to the little ones, they need

fixed structures." Another teacher believes it "takes up too much time".

At a village school, the school leader wants to work more with project-oriented teaching based

on problem formulations, and she has made a parallel schedule for the three classes to make it

possible to work more interdisciplinary. She also plans to clap the lessons together in four-hour

modules so students do not get so many shifts during the day.

2.3.1 Interdisciplinary Teaching

A particular aspect of the flexible organisation is the actual interdisciplinary teaching, where sev-

eral subjects are brought into play by working on a common theme. As mentioned above, it is a

requirement in the Primary School Act that schools should also teach interdisciplinary.

In the interviews, several examples of successful courses are mentioned, e.g. one about the "har-

bour", where the subjects Greenlandic, Danish and mathematics were included. However, in sev-

eral cases it appears that the interviewed teachers are not fully aware of what characterises inter-

disciplinary teaching, and confuse it with other interdisciplinary working and teaching methods,

such as teaching across levels, theme and project weeks, division of groups and bridge building

etc. It suggests that it may take some time for interdisciplinary teaching to become widespread.

In the questionnaire survey, teachers have been asked how often they participate in interdiscipli-

nary teaching. Based on the answers in the interviews, it is uncertain whether everyone has the

same understanding of what interdisciplinary teaching is, so the results should be read with some

reservations. But less than half of the teachers respond either that it happens rarely (37%), only

in connection with the subject-oriented assignment in 7th grade and / or 10th grade project (8%)

or that it never happens (2 %). In addition, 23% say that it takes place in less than half of the

school year. Finally, 19% say that it occurs for more than half of the school year, and 11% say it

happens almost all the time (The Table Report, section 2.8, table 39).

The subjects most commonly included in interdisciplinary courses are Greenlandic, mathematics

and Danish (in that order). The teachers answered which subjects that were included in the last

project using interdisciplinary teaching they participated in, and to this, 78% answered Green-

landic, 63% mathematics and 55% Danish. For the other subjects, it is 41-44%, with the excep-

tion of English, which only 19% had used in their latest interdisciplinary course (Table Report,

section 2.8, table 40).

Similarly to flexible teaching, lack of time is perceived as a barrier, but teachers in the interviews

also say that it imposes (too) high demands on the cooperation within the school. The teachers

who teach interdisciplinary are especially those who have the same class in several subjects, while

it is appears to be harder to organise if more teachers are involved. For example, a teacher says:

"It is obvious to mix Greenlandic, personal development and biology, if you teach all the subjects yourself." (EVA's italics).

Two teachers can also join in a fruitful cooperation: At one school, several teachers succeeded in

merging classes during project courses and theme weeks, where they are two teachers who han-

dle the teaching. Some of them also use this as an opportunity to use the principles and methods

of Effective Teaching Principles, which they can better focus on in cross-disciplinary and project-

oriented teaching. One of the teachers emphasises, among other things, that a two-teacher

scheme in her eyes makes it possible to contribute with different skills - for example, one teacher

has good methodological experience and skills in organising activity workshop teaching and the

other can contribute with some academic layers in the teaching. In this case, project work and

theme weeks have also served as a way for the teachers to be academically inspired by each

other.

Often, interdisciplinary teaching is directed to the common theme weeks, but a teacher points

out that it does not have to be like this: "Interdisciplinary cooperation may well be better outside


of the theme weeks we have. We may be too busy. We should consider including it more in the

general teaching.”

The importance of cooperation is also illustrated in one of the village schools visited, where a

teacher tells us that in the past, the school's great strength was to work on a theme-structured

basis, where students together with the teacher developed narrative courses on the themes

(storyline method) and, among other things, logbooks were used as tools to build an alternative

and relevant teaching form for the students to relate to and involve more academic areas. Today,

according to the teachers, this has been lost, partly because of teacher replacements. In the eyes

of the teacher, they really need to develop the method from scratch.

In addition, some teachers - especially in the senior groups - are not as enthusiastic about the

idea. One teacher is sceptical about the relevance of interdisciplinary teaching: "Maybe there are

some who want to do more, but then there must be specified objectives. It’s okay if one subject

can support the other, but it's problematic if the students lack the basic skills in the subjects in-

cluded. ”Another teacher from the senior classes explains that teachers generally focus on their

own subjects, and that the senior classes have to focus on term and final tests.

Teachers Want More Interdisciplinary Teaching

Although the interviews at the schools show more examples of teachers who find it difficult to

implement successful multidisciplinary teaching and make it work in practice, it is not because

they do not want to work in this way. Almost half of the teachers would like to have more inter-

disciplinary teaching, and only a few would like to have less.

In the questionnaire survey, teachers have been asked whether they would like more or less inter-

disciplinary teaching. Just under half (46%) respond that they would like more interdisciplinary

teaching. The other half (49%) finds that the scope is appropriate. Finally, there are 5% of the

teachers who would like less interdisciplinary teaching. The figures can be seen in the table be-

low.

Table 1

If you could decide, how would you like to organise the extent of interdisciplinary

teaching?

Town School (N = 229)

Village School (N = 53) Total (N = 282)

I would like more interdisciplinary teaching 48 % 40 % 46 %

I find the extent appropriate 47 % 57 % 49 %

I would like less interdisciplinary teaching 5 % 4 % 5 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire to teachers who were employed in the Greenlandic primary

school in school year 2013/2014. Table Report section 2.8, table 4.1.

With the relatively large group of teachers who would like more interdisciplinary teaching, the

question arises as to what barriers they experience in order to practice more interdisciplinary

teaching. The teachers who have answered that they would like more interdisciplinary teaching

have been asked about the barriers they experience in order to carry it out. Again, the answers

first and foremost list the lack of time and cooperation:

36% of the teachers respond that no agreement has been reached on the topic between the

teachers. 18% respond that it is too time consuming. In addition, 20% and 19% respectively find

it difficult to achieve the learning objectives for the individual subjects, and find it is difficult to

harmonise the subjects with interdisciplinary cooperation. Finally, 11% of the teachers answer

that there is no support from the management. The answers are shown in the table below.


Table 2 Do you experience any barriers to having more interdisciplinary teaching?

Town school (N = 105)

Village school (N = 19) Total (N = 124)

There is no consensus among the teachers

regarding the issue

38 % 26 % 36 %

Other 34 % 26 % 33 %

It is difficult to reach the learning objectives

in the individual subjects if you have to work

interdisciplinary

15 % 47 % 20 %

It is difficult to fit my subjects into interdisci-

plinary collaboration

20 % 11 % 19 %

It is too time consuming 15 % 32 % 18 %

There is no support from the management

on the issue

12 % 5 % 11 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire to teachers who were employed in the Greenlandic primary

school in school year 2013/2014. Table Report section 2.8, table 42.

Note: The respondents were given the opportunity to submit more answers to this question.

Note: This question is only given to the part of the respondents who answered the question "If you could decide

how would you like to organise the extent of interdisciplinary teaching? with "I would like more interdisciplinary

teaching".

2.3.2 Summary and Assessment – Flexible Organisation and Interdisciplinary

Teaching

It is not possible to determine exactly how much the individual student experiences traditional

classroom teaching and how much is organised interdisciplinary or outside the fixed schedule.

Figures and interviews indicate that theme weeks and interdisciplinary courses occur to varying

degrees, but the interviews show that many teachers are in fact uncertain about what it means to

work interdisciplinary, probably because they are not used to it. Both interviews and the ques-

tionnaire survey also point out that they only do this to a limited degree in practice mainly due to

the fact that it requires collaboration between the teachers, which is clearly difficult to achieve.

Some also regard it as a professional challenge - that it takes too much time, takes time from the

teaching that is aimed at the tests, or simply that it is difficult to combine the subjects. It seems

unfortunate that some teachers believe that the schedule is an obstacle to organising the teach-

ing more flexibly, given that the Primary School Act exactly states there should be an opportunity

as well as a guide that calls for an extensive use of it.

2.4 Effective Teaching Principles It is not a requirement that teachers work according to the so-called Effective Teaching Principles.

But the principles have been taken up by Inerisaavik and conveyed as an offer to the schools - an

offer of a way of working with teaching that complies with the requirements of the Primary

School Act and adapted to the Greenlandic society and the culture of Greenland. When evaluat-

ing whether the Effective Teaching Principles are used in schools, the aim is not to determine

whether or not they do something right or wrong. It is partly to see the results of the great effort

that has been made to have schools use these principles, partly to investigate whether Effective

Teaching Principles are being used because it is one way of ensuring that the teaching meets the

requirements for variation, differentiated teaching and interdisciplinarity. Firstly, it is described

what Effective Teaching Principles are. Then, the observed teaching is analysed to see if the prin-

ciples can be found in this. As it turns out that much teaching does not reflect the Effective

Teaching Principles, it is investigated what the reason behind this observation might be.

Effective Teaching Principles are also known as CREDE, which is a shortening for the research

centre’s name where the approach was developed, namely the Centre for Research on Education,

Diversity & Excellence. The centre was previously part of the University of California, Berkeley

Graduate School of Education, but later moved to the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.


On Inerisaavik's website, the background for taking this approach is described:

Experience shows that in the traditional school, a large proportion of the students will not achieve satisfactory results at the end of schooling. There will be a large residual group without the opportunity to move on in the educational system. Studies have shown that language, social groups and geographical and cultural factors in-fluence the students' benefits from schooling - and the risk groups will tend to drop out of the school system. Through observations and studies, CREDE researchers have identified teaching models and methods that have shown to have a good effect on the risk groups. These methods are not a new kind of pedagogy, but pedagogy "experienced" through "best practices" by routined teachers and then measured and tested scientifically.2

Effective Pedagogy, Effective Teaching Principles or CREDE

The educational approach discussed in this chapter is characterised by having many names.

Inerisaavik calls it (at present) Effective Teaching Principles, and since it is a good descrip-

tive term, it is used in the report. However, in the initial stages of the evaluation, we used

the concept Effective Pedagogy, and as this is written in the questionnaires and used in the

interviews, we have maintained it on the reporting of them. Many also use the term

CREDE, although it is rightly the name of the research institution and not the approach.

Effective Teaching Principles operate with a number of principles (in the English-language articles called standards), which include learning through collaboration and joint activities with the teacher, creating linguistic stimulation across subjects, involving and connecting the students' ex-periences with the academic teaching, working with high expectations, evaluation and feedback and working with learning stimulating conversations between the teacher and the students in small groups. In addition, practical teaching methods have been developed that incorporate and provide practical structure to the current standards. However, it is important to be aware that the activity workshops are only one possible method of application of the principles, and the articles on CREDE on Inerisaavik's website describe many other ways of teaching.

The five principles are described in documents that can be found on Inerisaavik's website.3 These

are:

• Joint productive activity

• Language development and literacy

• Contextualisation

• Challenging activities that stimulate nuanced and complex thinking

• Instructional conversation.

Principle 1, joint productive activity is about promoting active participation and productive activity

for all students regardless of their academic level. Therefore, the focus is on the teacher attempt-

ing to stimulate students’ exchange of views, their problem solving and their strategies of think-

ing based on the work of a common product through appropriate support. The decisive factor is

therefore to create a common object for the cooperation of many students and joint, coordinated

efforts.

2 Source: http://www.inerisaavik.gl/projekter-og-fag/effektive-undervisningsprincipper/info-om-crede-samt-arti-

kler/. 3 On the website you will find a brief overview of the five standards plus two extra, but only the first two are described, while the other five pages are empty. See, for example, http://www.inerisaavik.gl/project-and-fag/efficient-understanding-principles/de-7-standards/standard-3/.


Principle 2, development of language and literacy, focuses on promoting and stimulating the use

of both daily and academic language in activity workshops. The idea is that the language is a

basic tool that generally supports intellectual development and that it is an important value in

student learning to support a diversity of linguistic exchanges of thoughts and views.

Principle 3, contextualisation is about connecting the learning goals, the academic teaching and

the students' own experiences from home and society. Here, there is a focus on making teaching

relevant and application-oriented for students by bridging the knowledge that children acquire in

life outside of school and the academic education. This element focuses especially on students

from education-induced homes whose knowledge, reflections and experiences are different from

the norm that traditional teaching originates from.

Principle 4, challenging activities that stimulate nuanced and complex thinking, emphasises the

importance of having high expectations for all students, while it is still important for students to

experience success. This principle also includes working with evaluations and assessments of stu-

dent performance and feedback.

Principle 5, instructional conversation, is about creating structures for students and teachers to

work closely together in smaller groups where the teacher can support the student's learning by

asking open questions, listening, encouraging, praising and generally promoting the student's

own flow and own learning process. For the teacher, the key is to assume a role in which he or

she instead of communicating new knowledge or instruction acts as an auxiliary engine for the

student's own reflections and reasoning by challenging and directing the student through ques-

tions and comments.

One of the articles about CREDE on Inerisaavik’s website4 is about the use of the so-called activity

centres. They are described in the following way:

Activity Centres integrate the standards of Effective Pedagogy Activity centres differ from traditional workshops in a number of important areas. Firstly, and most importantly, they integrate the standards of Effective Pedagogy: Teachers and students work together on meaningful tasks based on the students' own knowledge and experience, and academic conversations are conducted to promote the students' under-standing. Secondly, it is a fundamental goal for all tasks in the centres to promote the use, processing and application of academic concepts as well as developing skills in nuanced thinking. Thirdly, the activities in the centres call for active cooperation and wide-ranging conversations to promote the development of both the daily and academic languages of the participants. The overall goal of the activity centres is to change the teaching so that the teacher can provide the best teaching of a small group of students in the "main cen-tre" while the other students in other activity centres work appropriately and inde-pendently with different tasks related to each other. Since each activity centre has different activities, and the students have to work in all centres, everyone will have the opportunity to work in a small group together with the teacher at the main centre.

In the same article, it is emphasised that the use of activity centres is only one method out of

many, and furthermore it is proposed as part of a longer course over many weeks, where lessons

are conducted in the first stages, etc. Furthermore, the importance of structuring each teaching

course for the students is pointed out. I.e., it is important that a teaching lesson is initiated and

completed in a structured way by giving clear presentations of the structure of the lesson, con-

tent and learning objectives, and finally summarising what the students have learned.

2.5 Observations of the Teaching When observing single teaching lessons in isolation, it is not possible to determine to what de-

gree, e.g., it is based on the individual students. The lesson forms part of a longer course and we

4 Designing Effective Activity Centers for Diverse Learners – a Guide for Teachers at all Grade Levels and for all Subject Areas by R. Soleste Hilberg, Ji-Mei Chang, Georgia Epaloose, R. William Doherty, Ward Shimizu and Vanessa Lee.


do not know the students' prerequisites, action plans, previous evaluations or the teacher's di-

dactic and pedagogical considerations. The observations should therefore not be seen in isola-

tion, but as a fragment of the overall picture of the teaching practice.

In the categorisation of the observed teaching, considerable emphasis is placed on whether it has

been observed that the Effective Teaching Principles are applied. As mentioned earlier, this should

not be taken as an evaluation of whether the teaching is right or wrong. It is primarily intended

as an objective identification of whether the principles are used or not, based on an interest in

having a focus on the observations of the teaching, because the approach must be seen as a tan-

gible way to work on creating varied and differentiated teaching. Thus, it has helped to illuminate

whether or not and how the teaching is based on the individual student and in the students' dif-

ferent prerequisites. Finally, we are also interested in whether the teaching in a broader sense

"works" - and what characterises the teaching if it does in contrast to the one that does not.

Engaged first grade students, Sisimiut

2.5.1 The Observed Teaching Can Be Divided into Three Categories

The lessons observed during the evaluation can roughly be divided into three categories: Teach-

ing that follows the Effective Teaching Principles to a large extent, teaching that does not follow

the principles but work well and teaching that does not function well. The way to distinguish be-

tween "teaching that function" and "teaching that does not function" is primarily through the

pedagogical and didactic structure of the teaching. Emphasis has been placed on whether the

teacher practices classroom management, including clear teaching goals and learning objectives,

whether the activities are organised and the learning is structured, whether activation and moti-

vation of the students occur and whether there is sufficient support for the students by the

teacher.

I.e., it has been an important aspect of whether it has been made clear to the students what they

were supposed to learn, what has been expected of them and what was to happen in the class-

room. In addition, emphasis is placed on whether they are attentive and whether they are en-

gaged and participate in the work of the class. "Teaching that function" is thus understood as

teaching with a learning environment in class that the students understand and function in, and

where the teacher directs the teaching to a greater or lesser degree depending on the subject

and context. The degree of unrest in the class – e.g., in the form of disturbing the teacher or the

other students through talk or by someone leaving his/her seat in the middle of the lesson - is an

aspect of this.


Teaching which Essentially Follows the Effective Teaching Principles

In connection with the evaluation, no teaching was observed that was fully implemented in ac-

cordance with the Effective Teaching Principles, if teaching in activity centres is included. But

some have been close. In one case, only the part of "coherence between the student's life experi-

ences and school experiences" was missing. It was during Danish classes where the theme was

ghost stories. The actual lesson was organised in activity centres, where grammar was practiced

at the teacher's table (the distinction between nouns, verbs and adjectives) while the students at

the other tables practiced the glossary and understanding of the story in question through puz-

zles etc., which the students had to work on together. The teacher had explained and written on

the board what was going to happen in class and how it was related to the previous and what is

to come in a joint course that would result in the students making their own horror film. The les-

son was characterised by activity and commitment, and there were a minimum of reproof and

commands by the teacher. The teacher has no action plans for the students as they do not make

action plans in all subjects. The school allows students to choose some subjects for which they

want to write an action plan.

Another example was a first grade class who were making some full-sized human figures on pa-

per in groups. It can therefore not be characterised as activity centre teaching, but group work

with a teacher at each of the two groups. The children were allowed to choose what they would

do on the figure (cut yarn for hair, colour, etc.), and the teachers explained carefully to the chil-

dren about the individual parts of the figures and the materials and the tools they used in order

to make them. If some children were unfocused, they were "caught up" again with a new, spe-

cific task. Eventually, the characters were given names, and it gave rise to talks about spelling. At

the end of the lesson, the students sat in their seats, and one teacher gathered some questions

to the students about the day's work, and they evaluated whether they had worked well. As the

children are so small, the teachers did not make action plans with them, but they are very aware

of the fact that the students are different - some fast and others slow to different things - and

taken that into account.

If you use the student's concentration and commitment as a measure of whether the teaching

has worked, it applies to the teaching of this group as the students were active during the lessons

in question. In one class, however, it was more a matter of "calm but limited concentration (as

the teacher comments)" - and it can be explained by the students in the senior classes having to

listen to comparatively similar presentations by their classmates so that inevitably there were rep-

etitions throughout the lesson. The students from this lesson were subsequently interviewed, and

they said it had been a good lesson. Their perception of what the goal of the lesson was entirely

corresponded with what the teacher explained in the subsequent interview. They also said that

the teacher in question is good at explaining what they are going to work with. They think the

teacher is tough and demanding, but that it is nice and that she is their best teacher. The teacher

here says that she "of course" uses the students' action plans when she organises her teaching.

Thus, there are three teaching lessons that are examples of well-functioning teaching situations

characterised, among other things, by coming close to the Effective Teaching Principles. The

teachers have a clear goal of the lesson, the students know what they are going to get involved

in, and there is a high level of student and teacher activity.

Teaching not Following the Effective Teaching Principles - but Functions

Some of the attended lessons are not directly or visibly based on Effective Teaching Principles, ex-

cept that some of the principles are followed anyway - which is not strange as the principles are

neither new nor unknown in pedagogical practice. The examples here are all characterised by the

fact that there is a good energy and peace to work in class. Common to these lessons is the clear

structure - and it seems as if the students are aware of what is going to happen and understand

the idea behind it. Some of the examples are a bit difficult to classify in relation to the teaching of

mathematics, where the students work in each of their own books, so you cannot immediately

see if there is a connection to the student's background and experience. But since the mathemat-

ics books use examples from the Greenlandic daily life, it is to a certain extent met through the

material. However, it can still not be determined whether it is a part of the teacher's reflections. It

is also difficult to assess the extent to which the individual students receive input from the


teacher, but it is the impression of the observers that the teachers in these lessons have also given

(at least some of) the students assistance to form their own reflection through longer dialogues

with each of them. Some of the teachers in this group let the students make action plans, but

have used them actively in the classroom so far.

Teaching which Does Not Function

Finally, there is a group of observed lessons characterised by the students either being very un-

easy or not focussed. In some cases, the students are quiet and do as the teacher asks them to in

principle, but at the same time it is clear that they do not really participate in the teaching when

the teacher does not have an eye on them. These lessons are characterised by the fact that none

of the Effective Teaching Principles are in use, and there is very ominous or no structure on the

teaching.

In one of the observed lessons, the teacher would like the students to discuss the meaning of

some words that often appear in applied math. The students were to discuss the words in groups

and arrive at some suggestions on the meanings, but clearly did not understand what he meant.

They just sat there and chatted about other things without getting anything down on paper.

When a student at some point asked for the meaning of an expression used by the teacher, the

teacher replied that he had already said it twice and would not say it again. "The group func-

tion" took a lot longer than planned, so the students did not at all see the last questions on the

sheets. During the interview, the teacher explained that he found it difficult to get the students

to listen. Why he did not use Effective Pedagogy was because he thinks it takes too long to pre-

pare. He also thinks it is difficult to change.

In another observed lesson, the teacher wanted to see if any previously reviewed material had

been memorised by the students, and therefore they received individual tasks on each their sheet.

The task also turned out to take a lot longer than calculated, so there was no time for anything

else during the whole lesson. The students could not solve the assignments, and the teacher tried

to help them individually. Some of the students hardly tried, but the teacher focused primarily on

those who asked him for help. As the teacher did not speak Greenlandic, the explanations were

very simplified and structured in the same explanatory model. It was very difficult to see at the

students if they thought it made any sense. Finally, there was some time left where the students

were asked to get their books and do arithmetic, but the students managed to stretch the "get-

the-book-in-the-box" process so far that they did not even get to open the books. During the in-

terview afterwards, the teacher expressed that it had been an ok lesson. He was pleased that the

students could hold the concentration for so long with their individual tasks as this can prove dif-

ficult for them. But the teacher explained that it is otherwise a class of "extremely exemplary stu-

dents" who are highly disciplined. The goal of the lesson was primarily to see what they could,

but it turned out to take a lot longer than expected and he had to note that "it was tremen-

dously sluggish" this morning.

Moreover, it is characteristic of the examples in this group that several of the teachers themselves

thought that the teaching went well. None of the teachers here use student action plans in the

organisation of their teaching.

As mentioned, educated teachers have been observed in almost every case, and in the examples

both Danish and Greenlandic teachers are represented.

2.5.2 The Five Principles Used in Teaching

When analysing the observed teaching thoroughly and looking at the extent to which the Effec-

tive Teaching Principles are applied, whether activity centres are used and whether there is a suf-

ficient degree of classroom management, including clear learning and teaching goals, student

supportive management, student activation and motivation and an organisation of the activities

and learning, some interesting observations appear.

Principle 1: Joint productive activity occurs almost exclusively in the first group of lessons where

the students make puzzles together (and have to make a movie later), make collages together or

make presentations for each other. In most cases, the teaching is based on the textbooks, either


in the form of individual assignment (typically in mathematics) or in the form of "listen-read-an-

swer questions" in the language teaching.

Principle 2: Language skills - developed in interdisciplinary teaching, do not seem to exist at all, as

an interdisciplinary approach is assumed, and it is not seen in any of the examples except one.

(See more on interdisciplinary teaching in section 6.3) However, in the teaching of the first two

groups there is a training of linguistic skills with the dialogue between teachers and students, in-

troducing new concepts for the students either in Greenlandic or in a foreign language. In the

examples in the last group, it may have been the intention of the teachers in some of the teach-

ing examples for the students to learn new concepts, but the students do not respond to it and

at least do not use the language actively.

Principle 3: The connection between the student's life experiences and school experiences is un-

derstood not necessarily as the inclusion of something the students know from their daily life in

the topic of the lesson, but that the teacher can draw parallels or otherwise associations to some-

thing familiar. It happens in a majority of the observed lessons, but it also seems that there is no

link at all - for example, in the last group of examples.

Principle 4: Challenging activities which stimulate nuanced and complex thinking is, like the first

principle, rarely occurring. The activities do not, according to the principle, have to be teacher-

controlled, but apart from the one example in the material on the use of activity centres and the

example of the children making collages, all the observed teaching situations were governed by

the teacher and his/her review (or presentation of the tasks) and questions to the students.

(Again, one must take reservations for the lessons where the students worked individually with

their math books - they may very well have been challenging activities). In most educational situa-

tions, the teachers' questions to the students (if there are questions) are characterised by ques-

tions about facts ("what does xx mean?", "What happened in year xx?") Or questions that you

can only answer with a yes or no. For only a few of the lessons observed, the teacher asks stu-

dents questions or assignments that require of the students to combine facts or facts and experi-

ences, to decide on something, to make an interpretation or the like. In some cases, the teacher

makes the opposite of stimulating students' thinking, namely by giving them the answer to the

asked question before the students themselves have time to think about it or at the first sign of

the students showing signs that it is difficult. For example, a class had to write some answers in

their task book, and the procedure was the teacher telling them what to write in the different

boxes.

Principle 5: Instructional conversation – here we look at whether the teacher has a set "program"

for what needs to be said and reviewed, or whether the questions asked and the topics raised

make room for the questions and possibly get affected by the questions or input of the students.

This is typical for the first examples, but not for the last ones. It is noted here that four observed

lessons are math classes where the students work individually, but since two of them are handled

by Greenlandic teachers, it is possible to have an academic dialogue between teacher and stu-

dent in contrast to the two lessons with Danish teachers who can only conduct a completely rudi-

mentary conversation with the students (more about this topic in section 2.5.3).

The framing of goals and content in the teaching is included in the guidelines for working with

activity centres, and also ties with the intentions that there should be an objective for each lesson

which must be communicated to the students, and which they will reflect on whether or not it

has been reached. It is apparent from the examples that "the full package" - i.e. both introduc-

tion and joint review of the lesson - was only seen once during the observations. In many cases,

the lessons have been framed from the beginning so that it is very clear to the students what the

objective of the lesson is but not evaluated at the end. In most cases, there is a "limited framing"

that consists of the teacher explaining what is going to happen today (typically which chapter of

the book to be reviewed or what types of tasks to work with), i.e. what activity to take place, but

without simultaneously explaining what the learning objective of the lesson is.


Classroom management is in this context understood as the teacher organising and structuring

the teaching and ensuring that the students work in an appropriate way, e.g. by starting the les-

son in time and varying between activities based on the learning objectives. In addition, it is

about student support management and about activation and motivation of the students. In rela-

tion to this point, we have studied whether the course of the teaching appears logical and appro-

priate in relation to the objectives and is appropriate in relation to the time spent, and whether

the activities are rooted in the teacher's planning. In the observations, some of the teaching has

had a fairly traditional structure built upon a chapter in a textbook, with reading aloud, review of

questions and processing of individual assignments. In other classes, the structure consists of the

students knowing that they have to continue working on their assignment books. In examples 1-

4, there is a completely different kind of structure in which the teacher has planned a variety of

activities that in different ways activate words and concepts from the subject of the day and uti-

lise the full length of the lesson.

Workshop teaching, understood as activity centres according to CREDE, occurred only in one of

the observed lessons. In one case, the teaching was organised around tables, but it was not with

one main activity table with the teacher and activity tables with the students worked inde-

pendently. It was in a village school where the 11 children were divided into three joint classes

(with two to three year groups in each). The teaching then took place at three tables, one for

each of the school's three classes with a teacher at each table, where each table had its own

mathematical theme. The students then moved around between the tables.

If you look at which lessons have been characterised by ‘peace to work’ - which must be consid-

ered a prerequisite for the student's benefit of the teaching - there are some connections be-

tween work peace and how the teaching is organised. Of course, you should be careful about

drawing too strong conclusions on the contexts in such a small material, but it is worth noting

that the parameter that immediately seems to be connected most directly with peace to work is

connected to what is referred to here as classroom management. At least it seems that the two

things go hand-in-hand in the observations. At the same time, it is obvious that the largest stu-dent engagement is present wherever Effective Teaching Principles to the greatest extent are in

play. In addition, two examples of quite traditional teaching (individual task solving with teacher

support) catch the eye which are characterised by good energy and concentration, but here it is

important to know that these were rather small classes in villages. They seem to be characterised

by the fact that the children get better working habits / more respect for the teacher than in the

towns, and the examples here are well-educated and committed teachers who are in charge. In

those lessons when there is an unclear or lack of structure, where the teacher does not enter into

a dialogue with the students, where the activities are not challenging and stimulating, and there

is no connection with the students' life experiences, etc., you find turmoil, bad discipline and / or

lack of commitment and activity from the students.

2.5.3 Danish Teachers – no Common Language with the Students

Compared to earlier, where a very large proportion of primary school teachers were Danish, they

currently only represent 17%5. They do not "take up" much space within the school anymore,

but in nine town schools, the proportion is higher - and in 14 town schools it is lower. (Source:

The Primary School 2013/14, Inerisaavik 2014). Danish teachers meet the basic challenge that

they do not have a common language with the majority of their students.

There are Danish and Greenlandic teachers represented in all three main groups of the observed

teaching. The observations show that the circumstance that a Danish teacher who does not have

a full language in common with the students can be overcome through very well-planned and

structured teaching, which, by the looks of it, the students gain good academic benefits of. But

they also show that it can result in an "amputated" teaching where the dialogue with the stu-

dents is limited to very simple instructions in a primitive single-lingual Danish. If this teaching is

not planned and structured according to clear objectives, the academic content that the students

can be presented to is limited. Among the observed lessons are examples of teaching by Danish

5 The educated, non-Greenlandic speaking teachers make up 17% of the Greenlandic Primary school's staff of educated teachers. If you take pre-school teachers and temporarily engaged teachers, the non-Greenlandic speaking teachers make up 13% of the educational staff at the schools.


teachers whose success criterion is reduced to the fact that the students have come through as-

signments in fairly good order, but where no new knowledge has actually been presented to the

students and where the students' learning largely has been left to their own attempts to solve

some tasks.

2.5.4 Summary and Assessment – the Observed Teaching

The observed examples of teaching show that:

• There are very few cases of implemented Effective Pedagogy

• Teaching structured in other ways which functions has also been observed

• There is teaching that is quite unstructured and inadequately planned and cannot be said to

work

• Both well-functioning and inadequate teaching sessions are provided by educated teachers

• There are both Greenlandic and Danish teachers among those who provide well-functioning

teaching and those who do not.

The last part of a Danish lesson in 8th grade, Kangaatsiaq

2.6 Effective Teaching Principles – the Communication Be-came too Simplified

The extent to which the Effective Teaching Principles are being used today is very closely linked to

the way they have been introduced to the schools. This is evident from the interviews with the

various actors around the primary school - the ministry, the trade union, etc., but also with some

of the leaders of the schools. They show that the Effective Teaching Principles have been con-

veyed very simplified, so many have come to regard them as synonymous with the activity cen-tres, and they have experienced that it has been marketed as one – and the only true - teaching method. It has created a natural reluctance among many. This chapter illustrates the introduction

of the Effective Teaching Principles and the significance this had on the method they have put

into use.

2.6.1 Home Rule Initiatives

The initiative came from the Home Rule Government / Inerisaavik, and the choice of the Effective

Teaching Principles was based on input from international researchers, thorough consideration,

study trips, etc., pointing out that this was an approach that was particularly suitable for the

Greenlandic context, and which was tested and proven effective through research.6

6 See, for example, Inerisaavik's website: http://www.inerisaavik.gl/project-and-fag/effective-understanding-principles/info-om-created-other articles/ (seen 20-12-2014).


Member of the Naalakkersuisut (ed. Government) for Culture, Education, Research and Church

gave this statement at the autumn session in 2009 (EM 2009/145):

All school reforms have a common goal - and that is to improve the teaching and strengthen the individual student's learning, as expressed by Professor Roland Tharp from the University of California: ” Whether the reforms are about economics, class size limita-tions, teacher training, national standards and goals, teacher engagement, cooperation with the community or other education programs, it has no impact on student learning if it is not reflected in the teaching and learning activities of the individual classrooms.” Since school year 2006/07, Inerisaavik, in cooperation with the schools, has begun imple-menting Effective Teaching Principles. Many teachers and school leaders have signed up for the courses. Thus, 658 teachers and leaders have participated in the implementation of the Effective Teaching Principles at the end of the school year 2008/09. These courses are followed by collective and individual coaching of the teachers in connection with the im-plementation of the Effective Teaching Principles in each classroom.

Kaali Olsen, currently education inspector in the Self-Government, and Head of the Evaluation

Unit at the beginning of the reform, explains the background:

What we learned in Canada and the United States was that they read the same educa-tional theories as they do at the teacher training programme here, but we observed how they implemented the theories of teaching in a completely different way. The teaching was organised in a way where the learning situation was planned much more based on the children who were being taught. We had heard "we do that too", but what we saw here in Greenland was classroom teaching, not student-centered teaching. In Canada, in the progressive schools, we saw that their learning process was planned into the smallest de-tail. Right from the students entered the schoolyard and until they left, they were sur-rounded by solid frames. At home, we observed that there were virtually no frames agreed upon. There was no common pedagogical thinking at the schools, the teaching was very random, not particularly targeted, not very well planned. That is what we wanted to change, among other things through legislation on learning objectives and evaluation and on making action plans. Including the Effective Teaching Principles. .

2.6.2 The Teachers Conceived It Differently

But from the teachers’ perspective, it looked differently. Sivso Dorph, chairman of the teachers’

union, IMAK, explains:

We helped in making the school reform and put it in process, so we have always been positive about it. But we have not been big followers of what later became CREDE, be-cause it was a group of officials from the then Home Rule Government, who, after the pri-mary school regulation had come into existence, went to Hawaii and were inspired by how The Hawaiian system worked, and had seen the light and said, "Well, it fits the Green-landic system," and "the student is at the centre that's the way we should work in Green-land." We were also critical of it, because it did not form part of the processing of the reg-ulation. It came as a result of some officials' trip to Hawaii. And it is said that the regula-tion itself is based on CREDE - we do not believe it is. Because CREDE is a method used to organise the teaching. (...)What we learned from the teachers was that it did not function in the language teaching, where we must use words and speech, thus there were students who dropped out all the time. So the teachers who were out in the real world - they re-ported back to us that it did not work the way it was intended. Interviewer: But CREDE is five different principles, and workshop teaching does not have to

be more than a small part of it -?

It was presented as if all the teaching in Greenland should be conducted as workshop teaching, and that was the message that the teachers received. We did not think it was


genuine in relation to the professionalism that teachers have to show in the teaching situa-tion. Interviewer: So, the other principles that form part of this, where have they gone? Yes, but that's how it was launched, and that's the way the teachers came to perceive it. Our attitude towards it is based on the feedback we have received from the teachers.

The statement of the teachers' chairman clearly illustrates that the way the Effective Teaching

Principles have been introduced has given them a lopsided start. Partly because the teachers did

not get involved, partly because the dissemination has been too superficial and has contributed

to a simplified and misunderstood conception of what it is all about. Course descriptions from

Inerisaavik show agreement with this, the continuing training courses for teachers in the Effective

Teaching Principles focus on how to work with activity centres and not on the five principles.

A school leader, who is otherwise very positive towards the Effective Teaching Principles, explains

a resistor that similarly deals with the way it is introduced rather than the content itself:

Yes, overall, I would like the teachers to use Effective Pedagogy. But I'm always nervous because there have been people who brought the Holy Grail and when people come with the only true solution, I'm always sure they are wrong for one reason or another. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Effective Teaching Principles, or what you call it, but if you only run one thing, you have misunderstood something. There should be played on many different strings. The educators, we had as coaches, should have tried the role as learners themselves. Because it is not only the teaching method, it is also the way it is presented and the content itself. There must be great variety and it must be of relevance.

The quote illustrates the inappropriateness of how the new approach has been oversold in a way

that has caused scepticism in many places and that the courses may have had too much focus on

one teaching method.

At Ilinniarfissuaq [ed. Institute of Learning] there are clearly different attitudes towards the Effec-

tive Teaching Principles among the educators. One of the educators said that according to the

internship supervisors' feedback, the students should know more about ETP. But another educa-

tor disagrees. On the one hand, she believes that the principles are universal and not something

one can disagree with, but on the other hand, she does not teach them:

It's not something you can find as a requirement anywhere. Why should we do it then? Yes, I do, but if anyone asks if I teach Effective Pedagogy or CREDE, I would say no, I don’t. But as an educator, I use the approaches and methods and all the things. I have learned that teachers are happy to use it as a classroom management tool. To keep track of the class, to have values, how do you teach the children to sit still and shut up? (...)The students experience it with the "shut-up-tasks" at the places of their internship and are deeply frustrated. I then tell them that those teachers are obviously not academically well-founded enough to critically relate to the meaning of this on their own. The students learn to be critical and reflective of the methods and theories they are presented to, so yes, it is positive that they get frustrated by it.

The educator obviously refers to the fact that the students during internship meet activity centres

that have been used wrongly and without reflection. She furthermore elaborates:

I would feel bored if I was a student, and it was just workshops all the time. (...) I think very good teaching takes place ... I think a lot of teachers use the principles behind it with-out knowing it. If they discussed it professionally, I think they would discover that's exactly what they do.


It is interesting that the college educator here implies that you should not do something, when it

is not a requirement. At the same time, she believes that the principles are reasonable enough.

The two things do not exclude each other, and maybe it becomes a distinction which can be diffi-

cult to decode for the students.

As we shall see later, the presumption that "a lot of teachers use the principles behind" does not

match the observations and interviews made during the evaluation.

2.6.3 Courses and Tools for Effective Teaching Principles

Effective Teaching Principles were launched with an intensive training programme, so a very large

proportion of the teachers have received training in it (see more in 2.6 and 2.7). If the teachers

who have not been on a course want to read about it or need further elaboration or references,

they are referred to Inerisaavik's website. However, it does not give the impression of a high pro-

file or priority theme: The materials are not visible from the home page - they are under an index

tab called Projects and Subjects. Below you can find two submenus. One of which is called The Seven Standards7, and here the first two are described in keywords while the rest is missing. The

other submenu is called Info on CREDE and articles. Here you find various articles translated from

English, which give some background information and some examples, but not versioned for

Greenlandic conditions and therefore seem somewhat strange in the context (for example, they

use an example with a Mexican boy coming to the United States without being able to speak

English and illustrating how teaching can best take into account his particular situation). In addi-

tion, there are some instructional guides that focus on the activity centres. It is clear from the

translated articles that the Effective Teaching Principles are about much more than activity cen-

tres, and the principles are the mainstay.

2.6.4 Summary and Assessment - The Dissemination of the Effective Teaching

Principles

Where the actual primary school regulation came through a thorough preparation with many

seminars and consultations with all actors in and around the primary school, CREDE or Efficient

Teaching Principles were something that was discovered and initiated by a small group of profes-

sionals within the central administration. The ideas behind were factual and well-founded, but

several things have obviously gone wrong when the project had to be implemented in practice:

• The teachers and the teacher training programme were not involved and therefore did not re-

ceive co-ownership. This circumstance, along with a great enthusiasm and optimism by the

initiators, made it seem like a "religious" project, an ideology, the only true pedagogy for

which some were missionaries. It has created a critical / negative attitude among many teach-

ers and leaders.

• A very extensive training effort was launched, but it focused solely on one element related to

the Effective Teaching Principles, namely the activity centres. It has given rise to the misunder-

standing that the principles are "one method", which among other things allows many lead-

ers and teachers to invoke "freedom of method" and it is easy to reject as useless as one

method cannot be the answer to all teaching challenges.

• The efforts have not been followed by an easily accessible, understandable material that the

teachers have been able to lean against. Inerisaavik's website has not been completely edited,

and the curious teacher is not presented with any guide as to which articles have what status

and what they can be used for.

• The foundation itself – the five principles – did not receive negative reviews by anyone in the

evaluation.

2.7 The Teachers: Good Principles – Difficult in Practice In the questionnaire survey among the teachers, they were presented with the general question

whether they "teach according to the principles of Effective Pedagogy"8, and to this 9 % reply

that they do in all subjects, 66 % do it in some subjects, and 25 % do not at all (the Table Re-

port, section. 2.5, table 26). There is no difference between teachers from town and village

schools as far as this is concerned. There is furthermore no difference whether the teachers, who

7 In addition to the original five principles ("standards"), two have been added on modelling, visualisation and demonstra-tion, respectively - and about student-driven activity. 8 The term Effective Pedagogy is used during data collection, i.e. in the questionnaire surveys and in the interviews.


answered the question, are trained teachers or not. They were not asked what they understand

by Effective Pedagogy. The interpretation of this result is therefore uncertain as there can be

many different perceptions of what it means to "teach the principles", and only one quarter of

the teachers have participated in the study (and since it is likely that a plethora of the most en-

gaged teachers are the ones to have answered), and finally as the teachers, who have answered,

can be of the opinion that one “ought” to reply that one teaches according to the principles –

which may have given too many positive answers. In any case, the observations, as stated in the

previous sections and the qualitative interview, point out that the teaching in practice is only to a

lesser extent characterised by the Effective Teaching Principles. Conversely, there may also be

teachers who actually follow more of the principles, but answer no because they do not organise

teaching with activity centres. For example, during one of the visits, a teacher explained, in spite

of a positive view of the principles of Effective Pedagogy, she did not use the practical methods in

teaching: "These are good thoughts and principles. I have the theory in mind. "

Although there is a general support behind the principles of Effective Pedagogy, the interviews

with the teachers show that there is an overall perception that it is difficult to implement. The is-

sues highlighted will be elaborated in the following section. In the interviews, a few teachers par-

ticipated who did not know what Effective Pedagogy was. They were all Danish.

During the school visits, there were many uniform and comprehensive statements saying that

many teachers encounter a number of challenges if they want to work with Effective Pedagogy in

practice. Several teachers say that they have been motivated and enthusiastic about the approach

after attending a course, but that it has been difficult to keep it running for more than a short

period of time, so after a while it just "got off the track". In general the challenges pointed at by

the teachers include pedagogical management, collaboration and student prerequisites in order

to work in the way that the approach addresses. In addition, there is a widespread perception

that Effective Pedagogy is best suited in the classes with the youngest students.

Some Believe It Requires Support and Cooperation

Several teachers have mentioned in the interviews that it is important or necessary to have a com-

mon culture at the school in order to use Effective Pedagogy. A teacher describes, for example,

how she was very motivated after being introduced to it, but that enthusiasm waned, as she saw

that the approach did not win more ground at the school among her colleagues. She missed a

common culture, inspiration and mutual support in the academic environment at the school: "At

the beginning, I was up and running. Now it's different. It's hard to be the only teacher who uses

it. Now I use it for variety." Another teacher emphasises that it requires collaboration and finds

that the teachers at the school in her eyes work as individualists.

The perception that Efficient Pedagogy requires joint efforts at the school is also emphasised by

teachers who believe that joint efforts are necessary to maintain students in new work routines.

They say that all or many of the school teachers at the school have to practice it if it is going to

work for one single teacher. This is typically explained by the fact that working in activity centres

in the classroom is so different for the students compared to the ordinary, traditional board in-

struction that it becomes too difficult to keep the students in the method if it is not practiced

throughout a school day. As a teacher puts it, it requires an "all-in effort" in her eyes.

In several places, teachers point out that management plays a role in promoting this culture at

the school. A village school teacher says:

I use it very little. After we took the course, it went excellent for two weeks. But I lack backing and support from my leader. There has to be a school culture.


Some Believe It Requires Prerequisites of the Students

Some teachers believe that Effective Teaching Principles require certain prerequisites of students

or favour some groups of students. However, there are different perceptions of which.

Several teachers believe it is difficult to work with Effective Teaching Principles, because the stu-

dents in their eyes lack either academic skills or discipline to participate in the independent (not

directly teacher-driven) work or group work that it implies. At one of the school visits, a teacher

puts it simply: "My students cannot." A teacher in another town says that the workshop ap-

proach in Effective Pedagogy in her eyes makes it hard to keep calm: "It's too much trouble

when there are many students in the class." Conversely, a teacher who has started using Effec-

tive Pedagogy with her senior classes explains how it implies less distress because all students are

activated in the small workshop groups, and that she experiences a better contact with the stu-

dents. She finds that the frequent shifts between tables are assisting the students' ability to stay

focused. But at the same time, she notes that it is important to justify the purpose of the work-

shop teaching for the students.

Some teachers believe that activity workshop teaching is only good for academically strong stu-

dents and that it is not suitable for those students who are academically challenged. During a

school visit, a teacher says that the difference in her eyes is that the strong students become en-

gaged, but that the weak students are left behind when they work in activity workshops. A vil-

lage school teacher puts it like this, "It is good for well-functioning students, but the weak can

become relatively weaker because they become passive." Other teachers, on the other hand, ar-

gue that workshop training is only good for the academically weak students and that the strong

students are at risk of falling away. A teacher from a town school thus expresses:” It's good the-

ory, but it's not good for the good. "To this objection, a teacher, who uses it a lot, replies” that's

why it's important to know what to do when working with Effective Pedagogy. We have formu-

lated some values when we are engaging with Effective Pedagogy, for example, that the students

who are together must help each other. The weak student must receive help from his/her peer

next to him/her. When you are a teacher, you must also talk to the individual student and work

from where he or she is.”

Some Believe It Is Best Suited for the Youngest

Several teachers not using Effective Pedagogy do not do so, because they believe that it is only

suitable for teaching younger students. E.g., they say that it does not fit the requirements for

older students who have to prepare for the exams - there is not enough time to do it. A town

school teacher says, among other things, that she had a great motivation for using the methods

when she started the job, but that she was told by her new colleagues that they did not use it

with the older students whom she was to teach, because they believed it was a better fit with the

youngest students. When she, nevertheless, tried to introduce it to her new class, the students

reacted with the same view, which the teacher parodied during the interview: "Oh no, not that

again!" - they [the students] think it's a bit childish."

However, in the interviews there are also examples of teachers who successfully work with Effec-

tive Pedagogy in the senior classes. A teacher says, "It's a bad excuse when some teachers in the

senior classes say it cannot be used at that stage because of the many tests and test prepara-

tions."

The age of students is also a factor in the eyes of many teachers in relation to the opportunity to

use Effective Pedagogy as they believe it as necessary to introduce it while the students are still

small. In the interviews, several teachers make the view that students need to learn to work in

workshops early if the method is to work for them, because it is too difficult for them to change

and adapt themselves to the new structure. A village school teacher thus argues: "They must

learn the method while they are small." Or as another teacher in a town school formulates: "It's

fine, if you have started using it while they are still small. It's hard to teach them as they get

older."


Some Believe It is Takes up Time and Resources

Finally, several teachers mention that the challenge of using Effective Pedagogy as a method of

teaching is that it takes a lot of time and preparation. A teacher thus states: "It takes too much

time with the youngest; it needs a lot of explaining. If you use it, it must be adjusted carefully."

Another teacher in a town school also emphasises that it takes time to prepare, but still has good

experience: "You get closer to the individual student with Effective Pedagogy. It takes time to

prepare, but the students are happy with it."

2.7.2 Summary and Assessment – the Teachers’ use of Effective Teaching Principles

A common reason for not using Effective Teaching Principles is that students lack the necessary

prerequisites or do not have discipline enough for it. This is particularly interesting because Effi-

cient Pedagogy has specifically been developed to strengthen teaching and the learning of stu-

dents who, due to social, cultural and geographical conditions, have poor conditions and prereq-

uisites for learning. The broadened student group and the social challenges that may be related

to the work with the students are thus exactly part of the core behind the reason for using it.

In addition, most of the critical comments from the teachers reflect that they equate Effective

Pedagogy with activity workshops. It emerges when they say that - it requires discipline, the stu-

dents have to get used to it from they are small, it has to happen in collaboration with the teach-

ers, the older students think it's childish, etc. These are all plausible objections to the teaching

method in which the teacher must have a number of workshops to function without being able

to be with them all the time, because he or she is sitting at one table concentrating on the stu-

dents there; particularly when the students are not used to it. But there are none of these objec-

tions that can be directed against the principles of joint productive activity, language skills devel-

opment, etc. Thus, there is much to suggest that a significant part of the criticism of the Effective

Teaching Principles - and the sparse use of it in practice - originates in a misunderstanding of

what it's all about.

That it requires more preparation than traditional blackboard teaching based on a textbook is, on

the other hand, a finding that can hardly be rejected. Especially during the first years you use it.

2.8 The Leaders Support - But Make No Demands Across the data sources, an image emerges from the fact that leaders back up the use of Effec-

tive Teaching Principles, but generally refrain from making demands or expressing clear expecta-

tions of the teachers regarding the use of these. This is reflected in the questionnaire survey and

in the interviews with the school leaders in which their views on Effective Pedagogy and their per-

ception of the managerial role in supporting the work on the approach have been highlighted.

The questionnaire survey among school leaders shows that there is also generally great support

among them for using the principles of Effective Pedagogy in the teaching.

Table 3

Do you, as leader, suggest that teachers at the school use "Effective Pedagogy"?

Town Schools (N = 19)

Village Schools (N =

26)

Total (N = 45)

Yes, I attach great importance to it 8 (42 %) 12 (46 %) 20 (44 %)

Yes, I attach some importance to it 7 (37 %) 12 (46 %) 19 (42 %)

No 4 (21 %) 2 (8 %) 6 (13 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 26 (100 %) 45 (100 %)

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school, 2014.

Table Report, section 1.7, table 41.

On the question of whether school leaders emphasise that teachers use Effective Pedagogy in the

teaching, 44% (8 town school leaders and 12 village school leaders) respond that they attach


great importance to it, while 42% respond that they attach some importance to it. 4 town school

leaders and 2 village school leaders (13%) respond that they do not emphasise that school teach-

ers use the Effective Teaching Principles.

Town and village school leaders largely respond similarly to the question. If you dive into the rea-

soning behind the answer that, no, you do not encourage it as leader, you find that one of these

six leaders has chosen the answer "The teachers are not qualified for it", two reply that they have

not been able to get enough education for it and one has chosen the answer, "We do not think

it's better than what we do currently" (Table Report, section 1.7, table 43). The last two leaders

have chosen to formulate an answer in the open category, and they are very well matched with

the perception that also appears from the qualitative interview. E.g., a school leader says that he

is not opposed to Effective Teaching Principles, but that he sees the limited use of them as a re-

sult of the teachers' choice: "Freedom of method, everything in moderation. The teachers, who

choose to use it, use it and good ideas are contagious. "Several leaders in the interviews also re-

fer to the teachers' methodological freedom. One leader says, for example, "It varies from

teacher to teacher. We do not use it in all subjects. Most of them use some of it, but not the

workshops. It is up to the teachers to assess what works best."

Another open answer from the questionnaire survey among school leaders indicates that the

school management finds that teachers are not motivated, even though at the school there has

been a priority course activity with a focus on the subject:” Despite many courses, teachers have

not been motivated for using the Effective Teaching Principles. You can see it a bit among the

youngest students and otherwise not.”

In the interviews, these attitudes are elaborated. Two leaders illustrate what it means not to en-

courage the teachers to use it:

I do not interfere. We talk about common positions in the departments and settle them at the beginning of the school year. But it is up to the teachers what they do. I think they are trying and it will be more and more. We have many young teachers and they are trained in it. We are not 100% committed to Effective Pedagogy yet. We do not impose it. Some use it, but they have freedom of method. It is increasing at level 1 and 2.

Another leader puts words on what it means to attach "some" importance to it:

I would like more Effective Pedagogy for the sake of the results, but not all teachers be-lieve in it. And when you are a school that is having difficulty recruiting teachers, you must acknowledge that they can just leave [so the management does not want to put pressure on them]. We have discussions about it, but I know that it is me who is in charge. I think there must be room for diversity, but there will be coming more from me. I have to ensure it is good enough.

One teacher also mentions the erratic course of the management:

The previous leader did not care. Subsequently we had one who would like us to use it, but gave up. Cooperation within the teacher group has not been good, so it was a bad time. We haven’t had a common discussion on the subject, and then it fades away.

Finally, there are leaders who are unconditionally positive:

I urge the use of it and everyone has been on a course. Students love it, it is the best way of teaching. They can also learn it once they have grown up. Danish teachers can also use it. It's utter nonsense that you can’t, if you are unable to talk more with the students, but it requires skilled teachers. The teachers work with it individually and inspire each other. One teacher uses it consistently and has learned it at the teacher college.


Another leader says:

I am very much in favour of it. All teachers have received a course from Inerisaavik, and we have had a quality developer attached. But it's mainly on levels 1 and 2 they do it. The young teachers are absorbing the knowledge and using new things. The older ones have had great resistance towards it. However, research has shown that Effective Pedagogy is the best way to reach all students. (...)We have discussed it in the teacher group and with the supervisors at the different levels at the weekly meetings, and the teachers have made a large amount of material. I would rather have had that everyone used it more. It's is a pity when they don’t.

In addition, one leader who, on the one hand, is very critical of the old-fashioned teaching, which

he believes the teachers in his school practice. He characterises it this way: "Look on page 4, do

the tasks, and if the tasks are a little bit difficult, then we will make them together on the black-

board!" He is, however, not convinced that he can change it by issuing dictates, and then he is,

as he says, "a little nervous about something being introduced as the Holy Grail". In his opinion,

it is also an issue of competence. He does not believe that the teachers are ready to use Effective

Pedagogy, because they "have difficulty understanding what a learning objective is", and he

thinks that the first step must be for them to start planning their teaching, which he thus does

not think is the case today. Moreover, the interviews leave an impression that young teachers are

more likely to work with Effective Pedagogy than the older teachers.

2.8.1 Summary and Assessment – the Leaders’ Opinion of Effective Teaching

Principles

Overall, the emerging picture is that even the most positive leaders are reluctant to instruct teach-

ers to use Effective Teaching Principles. This indicates that the reluctance is more about the fact

that the leaders refuse to impose anything on the teachers at all rather than it is about the Effec-

tive Teaching Principles. It is well illustrated by the quote from the leader who himself discusses

his role as the one who determines and is in charge and the difficulty of getting this through.

There are also leaders who themselves have a slightly ambiguous attitude towards the Effective

Teaching Principles and therefore do not market it fully committed. However, nobody is as such

negative. Only one in the questionnaire survey believes that it is not better than what the teach-

ers otherwise do.

2.9 The Significance of the Effective Teaching Principles It is impossible to measure the extent to which Effective Pedagogy or Effective Teaching principles

have had an impact on the teaching in the primary school. The observed teaching and the num-

bers of teachers using it, in section 2.6, show that it cannot be claimed to be the dominant

teaching method. However, the principles, to the extent that they have been applied, may have

influenced the students' benefits of teaching. According to the teachers' assessment, it is a posi-

tive factor.

The teachers who have been employed in the Greenlandic primary school before the introduction

of Effective Pedagogy have been asked how they assess the benefit for the students. To this, the

largest group of teachers reply in the questionnaire survey (62%) that they think it has had some

positive significance. A quarter of the teachers (25%) believe that it has had a great positive im-

pact. 11% respond that they do not believe it has had any significance neither positive nor nega-

tive, and 2% believe that it has had some negative significance. The village school teachers are a

little more likely to attach positive importance to it than the town school teachers (35% to 23%).

The answers are shown below in Table 4.


Table 4

What impact do you think that "effective teaching" has had on the students' learning

outcomes?



Great positive significance 23 % 35 % 25 %

Some positive significance 64 % 52 % 62 %

No significance 11 % 9 % 11 %

Some negative significance 2 % 4 % 2 %

Pronounced negative significance 0 % 0 % 0 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire survey for teachers who worked in the Greenlandic Primary

school in the school year 2013/2014. Table Reports, section 2.5, table 28.

Note: This question is only asked the part of the respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Do you teach

according to the principles of "Effective Pedagogy"?” (Table Report, section 2.5, table 26) and to the question

"Have you been a teacher in Greenland before" Effective Pedagogy" was introduced?" (Table Report, section 2.5,

table 27) answered "Yes".

In the questionnaire survey among the school leaders, they were also asked how they generally

assess the significance of Effective Pedagogy on the teaching and the students' learning out-

comes. They respond a little more positively than the teachers, as all leaders respond either

"Great positive significance" (26%) or "Some positive significance" (74%) (Table Report, section

1.6, table 42). There is no difference between town and village school leaders. (It should be

noted that the question here can be interpreted in two different ways - "Some positive signifi-

cance" can both mean that practical Effective Pedagogy (only) has some positive significance and

that it has only some significance, because it generally is not widely practiced).

2.10 Institute of Learning and the Effective Teaching Principles

Leaders and employees at the Institute of Learning - i.e. the teacher training and Inerisaavik -

have been interviewed in connection with the evaluation and their statements support both the

analysis that points to problems in implementing Effective Teaching Principles, as well as the im-

pression that the principles have been forgotten at the expense of an understanding that the ac-

tivity centres are the core. Finally, they have a command of the real reason why the Effective

Teaching Principles are weak - it is, in the opinion of many, the lack of academic professionalism.

The leaders at the Institute of Learning immediately confirm that their task is to support the im-

plementation of the Primary School Act. Lone Hindby, Head of Department, Inerisaavik, says:

”We must be the prime mover; ensure it is implemented.” At the same time, they point out that

there have been different interpretations of what has been the core of the pedagogical part of it.

For example, what it entails to teach with "the student in the centre" or "culture-based", which

is also a part of the theory formation. College Rector, Dorte Cornelius, says:

The teacher training has kept a distance because Inerisaavik had ownership and resources for the reform, and all the reform work took place in Inerisaavik, and Ilinniarfissuaq was in the periphery. The teacher training has been critical of the reform, but has included ideas from the reform in the education programme, as it was a requirement in the terms of the commission on the new bachelor programme of 2005 that it must reflect the Primary School Reform. The conflict is that the tone of the reform, perhaps unintentionally, has been perceived as a dictation to run the educational programme in a certain way. Educa-tors of teachers react negatively to this as they advocate freedom of method and reflec-


tion. From the beginning there has been a conflict, and the reform has not been whole-heartedly endorsed. Instead of involvement, the teacher training has been the target of criticism, blamed for "not being involved" without any other attempt to listen to the opin-ions of the teacher education, perhaps a sense of being kept outside. The newly educated teachers know the five standards or principles that are good principles in themselves. In addition, they must know and learn different methods and be able to relate critically and reflectively to them. They also do so when they have been interns and seen the effect of the reform.

The college leader confirms that there has been some resistance, also at the teacher college,

against the entire project from the start, solely because of the way it has been launched. But

again, there is no opposition to the principles themselves. Why does it not function better in

practice? Ellen Jensen Karlsen, Head of Department at Inerisaavik, says:

We can see that teachers are having difficulty in practicing planning of teaching plans, which has nothing to do with Effective Pedagogy, but is one of the basic elements of the reform. Teachers also believe that you can learn Effective Pedagogy at a course as if it is just a technique or method when it is actually theoretical, pedagogical principles. I also be-lieve that Inerisaavik has not thought carefully enough on how to implement good teach-ing.

Lone Hindby confirms the theory that it has been conveyed more as activity centres than the five

principles and explains why there are difficulties with some of the principles:

It is my impression from the feedback that one has tried more to implement a form rather than what's actually in it. For example, it is the learning dialogue that is the core - the So-cratic form. Furthermore, it has not been considered in depth what it means to develop the language, what academic language is, how it differs from everyday language, why it is so important what pre-academic vocabulary and academic vocabulary entail, etc. That is with regard to those understandings. And you cannot teach a dialogue if you do not know that. (...)On many courses, it has been presented stringently with frames, briefing, etc. - and then you get to the schools and see that it is practiced as a form without content.

When some teachers say that collaboration between teachers is necessary in order for Efficient

Teaching Principles to work, Lone Hindby, who has worked for many years as a teacher, takes it

as an expression of the same:

I do not understand ... I can easily use the principles as an individual teacher, but many have understood it, e.g., as a rotation system and that is a misunderstanding.

Both the management, the educators at the college and the consultants at Inerisaavik have been

informed that during the observations of the teaching in practice there were quite a few exam-

ples of teaching not using the Effective Teaching Principles at all. There are similar explanations

from all three places. Lone Hindby states:

Good teaching depends on what you teach ... many teachers teach a lot of subjects that they do not know anything about and which do not interest them. If you do not have the professional foundation - knowledge about the subject - you cannot have a comprehen-sive view and manage an academic dialogue based on the students' inputs.

A college educator says - almost the same as a professional consultant at Inerisaavik: "It is the

professionalism that is lacking. I am convinced it requires academically skilled teachers to dare let

the students do it. It requires a great deal of professional knowledge. Overview."

2.11 Summary and Assessment – the Teaching The basics of the school reform have been completely new approaches to teaching. It is stated in

the Primary School Act that the teaching must correspond to the needs of the individual student,

address challenges for all students and be organised taking into account the objectives that


teachers and students in collaboration determine in the student's action plan. The evaluation

shows that this has certainly not become the dominant way of working at the school. It is a mi-

nority of the teachers who plan their teaching according to the students' action plans. Most of

them focus on learning objectives, but not as individual objectives for the individual student - ra-

ther they are used more traditionally as teaching plans. In the observed teaching, not many at-

tempts to differentiated teaching are seen, except for the simple form where the students work

with each their math book.

The chapter also looks at the application of the Effective Teaching Principles because it has been

a major effort in the Primary school, backed up by intensive course activities, etc. and because ap-

plication of the principles can be one way of complying with the intentions of the Primary School

Act. The evaluation shows that among teachers and leaders there is a widespread knowledge of

Effective Teaching Principles. At the same time it is clear that they generally have a positive per-

ception of the Effective Teaching Principles.

The criticisms or challenges that some teachers point out are about experiencing some limitations

as to how suitable the Effective Teaching Principles are in their teaching. For example, the chal-

lenges can be that they think the principles are only suitable for the youngest students, that stu-

dents have to learn it early to acquire the working method, or that students who are academically

weak or just restless do not fit in with the work form it is staged for. However, these perceptions

are not shared by all teachers and are also contradicted by the fact that there are teachers who

practice the method anyway - also with the oldest students or with unaccustomed or restless chil-

dren. The perceptions also indicate that there is a widespread confusion between the Effective

Teaching Principles and activity centres.

Particularly, the understanding that students with social or academic challenges make it difficult

or impossible to work with the Effective Teaching Principles is problematic and untenable as they

are developed and chosen precisely to give these groups of students a better structure to thrive

and learn.

At school level, many teachers lack the support of colleagues and a professional culture that en-

courages and motivates to develop the teaching through Effective Teaching Principles. Several

teachers also miss stronger support from the school management, and it is counteracted by the

fact that the leaders on their part are reluctant to encourage and support the use of Effective

Teaching Principles. If more teachers are to be able to see the potential of using the Effective

Teaching Principles in their teaching, leaders must increasingly be committed to securing both

professional support through educational leadership and a better structure for that collaboration

on the issue which the teachers are calling for.

First and foremost, the evaluation of the teaching shows that the provisions of the Primary School

Act - that the teaching must basically take into account the preconditions and needs of the indi-

vidual - have only succeeded in limited numbers.

Next, the evaluation shows that, although virtually everyone in and around the school thinks to

know what the Effective Teaching Principles are, there are widespread misunderstandings and

different understandings of them - and only a few examples of applied use. One cannot therefore

assert that the Effective Teaching Principles have been introduced and used on a scale that makes

it possible to assess whether the principles work in practice, and one cannot "blame" them for

the poor academic results of the school. Conversely, based on the generally positive attitude to

them, it makes good sense to "reboot" the project - relaunching the principles with a whole new

approach, focusing on the five (or seven) principles instead of the activity centres alone. Since

many resources have already been used on courses for teachers, and these obviously have not

had the desired effect, consideration should be given to new ways of dissemination – a dissemi-

nation, which increasingly has to go through the management, who will anchor and support the

pedagogical development locally. In order to create a clearer picture for teachers of what it is re-

ally about, one might consider, for example, to base this on films with good teaching situations

that can form the basis for discussions in the staff rooms, meetings in teams at the different lev-

els, etc.


Workshops in third grade, Tasiilaq

All three classes at the village school having mathematics, Akunnaaq

Danish language teaching in fifth grade – questions and replies are rehearsed, Narsaq


3 Objective and Evaluation

Learning objectives, action plans, level tests - the school reform introduced many major new ele-

ments in the primary school. The evaluation shows that these new tools have been widely de-

ployed at the schools, but the question is whether they also lead to the reflection and develop-

ment of teaching as intended.

3.1.1 New Tools to Work Based on Objectives and Evaluation

A key element of the school reform from 2002 is a comprehensive focus on evaluation. In the

guide to the Home Rule Executive Order No. 2 of 9 January 2009 on evaluation and documenta-

tion in the primary school, it is stated that an evaluation culture should be promoted that includes

"internal formative assessments and external normative and comparable assessments" (p. 11).

Evaluation is thus seen both as a tool for supporting the individual student's learning and devel-

opment by the teacher systematically following the students' performance and challenges with a

view to continuous adaptation of the teaching and as a tool in the overall monitoring of how the

school as such performs. At the same time, much emphasis is placed on the students themselves

being involved in the internal evaluation to make them active and conscious of their own learning

process.

The Executive Order contains a number of detailed provisions, but the evaluation focuses on:

• The organisation of the teaching based on learning the learning objectives

• The students’ commitment, as expressed in their action plans

• Use of documentation for development of the teaching, specifically in the form of level

tests and final tests.

The provision also deals with the contact between the school and the home, but this topic is

highlighted in the chapter on cooperation with the parents.

The Primary School Act contains an extensive evaluation system that

can be said to serve the following purposes as a whole:

To ensure an academic level by:

• Determining learning objectives so teachers, students and parents know what the stu-

dents have to learn

• Testing the achievements of the learning objectives continuously throughout the entire

schooling (level tests).

To ensure the best possible teaching by:

• Giving the teachers external feedback (level tests)

• Making the teachers themselves evaluate their teaching continuously

• Making the teachers reflect on the individual student’s results continuously in order to

adapt the teaching according to it, and the students can receive relevant feedback.

To make students aware of their own learning and own objectives by: • Letting the students form individual action plans

• Letting the students themselves assess if they have achieved their own objectives.


3.2 Learning Objectives Structuring teaching by learning objectives was one of the innovations in the school reform. The

objectives of the students' learning are built in level objectives, objectives of the subjects and

learning objectives.9

Level objectives are the overall objectives of the teaching at each level. The level objectives elabo-

rate the purpose and foundation of the primary school and indicate the educational profile for

each of the three levels in the primary school. The level objectives indicate the level at which stu-

dents are expected to have acquired knowledge and to master basic skills across subjects and dis-

ciplines. Subject objectives describe the purpose of teaching within the individual subjects and

disciplines covering the entire schooling. Learning objectives are specifications for the individual

subjects and disciplines that indicate the knowledge and skills that students are expected to have

acquired by the end of each of the three levels.10 The learning objectives must form the basis for

the continuous assessment that the teachers must undertake and for the level tests that will be

completed at the end of each of the first two levels.

Teachers are very aware of the existence of learning objectives and say for the most part that

they use them as a starting point for organising their teaching. It is apparent from the interviews

at the schools. In most schools, teachers must prepare annual, term and weekly plans, based on

the learning objectives. However, some teachers also organise teaching based on "where the stu-

dents have reached in the book".

The teachers perceive the learning objectives differently. Some do not think they are realistic - es-

pecially in Danish and English - but there are regional variations, for example, they are perceived

more unrealistic in those areas where students have a second first language other than West

Greenlandic (East Greenland and Qaanaaq). Some also perceive them as a list of things to choose from, others as a list of things that the teacher has to present (which therefore does not entail

that the students necessarily all learn it), While others again recognise it for what it is - a list of

what the individual student must learn, i.e. skills and knowledge each one of them should learn.

Some teachers think it is a challenge that the learning objectives are designed for all the year

groups combined for each level, as it makes it more confusing, and in some schools they have

also been divided into year group by year group. Some argue that it should be the same for the

whole country, also to make it easier for students who transfer to another school, while others

think it is important that teachers themselves deal with this locally.

3.2.1 To Work Based on Learning Objectives

In section 2.2 on teaching, it is examined whether the teachers take a starting point in the indi-

vidual students when they teach. This starting point must be seen in conjunction with the learn-

ing objectives - the focus of the teaching, one might say. The interviewed teachers have therefore

been asked where their starting point is when planning their teaching. In this respect, virtually

everyone answers - the learning objectives, "our Bible," as some call them. There are different

ways to do it, and it is in any case a widespread method to make annual or term plan based on

the learning objectives, while planning in the everyday is naturally based on the overall plan, but

also based on "where the students are", "What we are doing currently" or what the students

have worked on previously. One teacher says, "I'm not good at planning based on the learning

objectives, I take more ground in what we are doing." Another teacher uses the learning objec-

tives "and the students' prerequisites." Asked how he knows what these prerequisites are, he

answers that he "just knows the students."

Only two teachers among the interviewees respond that they take a starting point in the stu-

dents' action plans when planning their teaching. One says "of course!" to the question. Both

explain that their students' action plans were made individually, but simultaneously with the rest

9 Home Rule Executive Order no. 16 of 24 June 2003 on the level objectives, subject area objectives and learning

objectives of the Primary school's subject areas and disciplines. 10 The learning objectives are formulated according to the following template: ” It is expected that the students at the end of the junior / intermediate/ senior level can ... know about ... / know and use ... / have knowledge of ... / are familiar with ... / have an understanding of...” etc.


of the in class based on the learning objectives. The other teacher explains that the students

roughly formulate the same objectives, so it is possibly in practice to accommodate them in the

teaching. A challenge for some of the teachers is the fact that learning objectives are set for a

whole level at a time.

It makes it unclear for the teachers, and several also mention that it is a complicating factor for

students changing school. In many schools, therefore, it has been decided to divide the learning

objectives onto the individual classes.

3.2.2 Are the Learning Objectives Realistic?

It is widely accepted that learning objectives are difficult to achieve - especially in the two foreign

language classes, Danish and English.

In the questionnaire surveys, town school leaders and teachers who have taught senior classes

have been asked whether they believe the learning objectives in the individual subjects are "real-

istic to achieve for 80% of students by the end of 10th grade".

Table 5

To what extent is it realistic to achieve the learning objectives by the end of10th

grade for 80% of the students in this subject?

Town Schools

Leaders

(N = 18-19)

Teachers

(N = 46-69)

Greenlandic 16 (84 %) 82 %

Social Studies 16 (84 %) 67 %

Mathematics 16 (84 %) 58 %

Religion and Philosophy 15 (83 %) 63 %

Personal Development 15 (79 %) 67 %

Natural Sciences 13 (68 %) 57 %

English 9 (47 %) 32 %

Danish 8 (42 %) 41 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school,

2014 and the Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for teachers in the Greenlandic Primary school, 2014

The Table Report, section 1.8, tables 54-61, and section 2.4, tables 19-24.

The table shows that teachers are generally somewhat more sceptical of whether the learning ob-

jectives are realistic than the school leaders. In four subjects - Greenlandic, social studies, mathe-

matics, religion and philosophy - more than 80% of the leaders believe that it is realistic that at

least 80% of their students reaching the learning objectives by the time they finish 10th grade.

79% believe that it is realistic in personal development.

For the teachers, more than 80% think that the learning objectives are realistic in Greenlandic,

but in social science, mathematics, personal development and religion and philosophy, only 58%

and 67% believe so.

As far as Danish and English classes are concerned, the numbers are noticeably lower than the

rest. Here, only 47% of the leaders and 32% of the teachers believe that the learning objectives

in English are realistic. In Danish there are 42 and 41% respectively.

The leaders who answered that it is not realistic for 80% of the students to achieve the learning

objectives in one or more subjects' learning objectives have been asked to point to reasons for

this. The three most commonly mentioned reasons are - the objectives are set too high (seven


leaders), the students do not prepare enough (six leaders), and the teachers do not have the nec-essary competences, there is too much unrest during the lessons or the students have too much absence (all chosen by four leaders) (Table Report section 1.8, table 62).11 In the interviews with the teachers, this picture is confirmed and elaborated. Many teachers talk

about learning objectives as being too many, as "theory" and something that is only realistic in

Nuuk:

The learning objectives are theory. The reality is not like that. We have big social problems. It is very different from Nuuk, where I have worked as well. There was more external help for the students. Perhaps there are too many learning objectives. It is difficult. Inerisaavik has too little con-nection with us; they do not know where our children are and what we need. They do not know the different pre-conditions and do not have a real picture of how our reality looks like. The learning objectives and the level tests fit better in the big towns.

This statement is corroborated by the fact that the learning objectives are not perceived as partic-

ularly problematic in the teacher interviews in Nuuk. But in the questionnaire survey among the

school leaders, the five school leaders from Nuuk are actually equally "pessimistic" as the leaders

for the whole country. In all subjects except Danish, there is almost the same proportion of Nuuk

leaders who believe that learning objectives are realistic to achieve for 80% of the students com-

pared with the proportion of other school leaders. In Greenlandic and mathematics, even more

do not think that the learning objectives are realistic. (Table Report, section 3, table 1). As far as

Greenlandic is concerned, it is consistent with the fact that in Nuuk there are a number of stu-

dents for whom Greenlandic is not their native language, which is less common on the coast.

The learning objectives in Danish and English are spontaneously mentioned in several places - pri-

marily in villages and outer districts. A teacher and a leader from two small towns say:

Danish and English are difficult because they do not encounter it in everyday life. It is a problem for most people. They can read and write without errors, but they cannot say any-thing. The objectives in Danish and English are formulated as mother tongue objectives. In Danish, they are extremely high. Out here, it is a dead language.

A consultant in Inerisaavik acknowledges that the learning objectives in Danish and English do

not take into account that this is a foreign language for the students. The teachers' views on the

teaching in Danish and English and their competences in the subjects are explained in section 0,

Teaching Foreign Languages.

However, other subjects are also mentioned, for example physics and chemistry, where a teacher

says that some of the objectives are very high, but that it also depends a lot on the teaching the

students have received. Lack of teachers in some subjects, e.g. physics, can cause students not to

get the required number of lessons. Finally, some - also in Nuuk - point out that it is difficult to

achieve all learning objectives in the small subjects with only one lesson a week. The solution here

is to let the small subjects be part of a multidisciplinary course with Greenlandic or Danish, so you

can include it there, a teacher suggests.

Several interviewees argue that the problem of reaching all learning objectives is equally about

focusing on them all the way through the entire schooling. One leader believes the problem is

that efforts are not targeted and intense right from the beginning. This is confirmed by a teacher

in the senior classes explaining that she cannot use the learning objectives in the 8th grade she

just took over, because they are just too difficult. The class has otherwise made "learning circles"

with their teacher the previous year, where they wrote down what they would like to learn based

on the learning objectives and subsequently coloured them when they had reached the objective.

But "they just coloured some of it because they did not understand it". However, the problem

11 The teachers have been asked a similar question, but the number of answers is not sufficient in numbers to be used.


can also start already in the 1st grade. A teacher in the junior classes from a small town in an

outer district tells us that it is impossible to reach all the objectives for the youngest level because

many of the students have never been to kindergarten and cannot hold a pencil or cut by a line

when they start school. ”So it's difficult to reach it all before fourth grade," she explains.

In addition, the "realistically achievable" of the learning objectives is primarily tested in the final

tests, which also show poor average results in many subjects, but it is beyond this evaluation's

structure to go into an analysis of this.

3.2.3 Different Perception of what Learning Objectives are

The teachers do not all have the same interpretation of the learning objectives. Not everyone re-

gards them as binding. A teacher believes that it is a "catalogue that is not focused, it's too big"

and wonders what it means by "guiding" (this might be a confusion with the curriculum, which

are suggestions on how to specifically teach). Another teacher says that he does not necessarily

reach "all the items" but will get through all the "topics". A relatively new Danish teacher says

she takes a starting point in where the students are. She has heard that the learning objectives

are "just suggestions". Finally, a teacher has chosen to focus on "the most realistic" ones.

3.2.4 Inerisaavik on the Learning Objectives

One of the educational consultants at Inerisaavik explains that the learning objectives were sup-

posed to be revised in autumn 2014, but that it has been delayed due to the change of leader-

ship in Inerisaavik.

The educational consultants are aware that it is difficult for many teachers to translate learning

objectives into something more concrete - to sub-objectives, work objectives and learning activi-

ties, and that some of the objectives "may have overshot the mark". It should however become

easier to work with gradually, for example, because all new mathematics books take direct basis

in them (but there will still be a translation work for the teachers in it). Educational consultants

also have the experience that many teachers do not use the learning objectives correctly, pointing

out, among other things, that when some teachers think that it is just "a catalogue" and "for in-

spiration", it may be due to confusion with curriculum. Moreover, they believe that the young

teachers have learned to use learning objectives at college, while the older ones more "do what

they usually do".

The resigned leader worked on dividing the learning objectives that apply to the levels into guid-

ing learning objectives for each year group, as many teachers call for, but the consultants are a

little doubtful as to whether it is the right thing to do. One of them explains it this way: "We

would like to appeal to the professionalism of the teachers, not to lock them with detailed objec-

tives."

When many teachers find it hard to interpret the learning objectives, it is also - according to the

consultants - because they do not talk about it, for example, in the subject teams at the schools.

3.2.5 Summary and Assessment – Learning Objectives

The teachers are generally aware of the existence and purpose of the learning objectives. However,

it is apparent that not everyone understands them as a list of what each student should learn, but

rather uses them as a catalogue from which you can pick and choose topics from for their teaching.

The fact that some teachers are content with only mentioning the topics on which the learning

objectives are based is of course not satisfactory either. It is absolutely crucial that you as a teacher

understand that they are objectives for the student's learning, not for the content of the teaching.

And that does not always seem to be the case.

Many teachers are aware of the learning objectives when they make their overall educational

planning, but something indicates that they are not always to the same extent on a daily basis.

This creates a risk that too little happens in the individual lesson, which will of course make it dif-

ficult to achieve the learning objectives in the end. That there are lessons that do not meet any

(partial) learning objectives became apparent from the observed teaching, cf. section 2.5.


Whether the learning objectives are realistic to achieve or have actually been achieved, you get an

indication of from the final tests, which is outside of this evaluation's area, but a non-insignificant

part of the teachers perceive the learning objectives in Danish and English as unrealistic.

3.3 The Students’ Individual Action Plans All students must, according to the law, make action plans for their learning in all subjects. It

does not happen consistently, but work on individual student action plans is very common and

there are only a few places where schools do not use it at all. Teachers are generally positive and

think it makes sense, probably because it gives rise to good conversations with the students

about what they want and need - both in the short and the long term. But there are also critical

voices and examples that they are not used completely as intended.

When the students are asked to design action plans for all their subjects, it is among other things

to raise awareness of their own learning and to help ensure they reach the objectives. The objec-

tives of the action plans should be based on the learning objectives / sub-objectives of the teach-

ing and "be formulated clearly and concretely enough for the students themselves to assess

whether and to what extent the objectives in question have been achieved" (the guidelines of the

executive order, p. 6).

Students must prepare action plans at least twice a year and they must be forwarded to the

home prior to school-home conversation. Parents should be able to make suggestions for other

objectives or how they can support their children in achieving the objectives. The student must

continuously evaluate himself/herself in relation to the objectives in the action plan to become

aware of his / her own learning process and whether the objectives are met. Inerisaavik has devel-

oped an entire system of forms and guidelines, collectively called Angusakka ("What I've

achieved"), for the preparation of an action plan, own assessment etc.

3.3.1 Application of Action Plans

In 19 out of the 45 schools whose leaders have participated in the questionnaire survey, students

prepare action plans in all subjects twice a year as the executive order prescribes:

Table 6

Do you work out action plans with the individual students twice a year?



Yes, in all subjects 6 (32 %) 13 (50 %) 19 (42 %)

Yes, in most subjects 5 (26 %) 6 (23 %) 11 (24 %)

Yes, in some subjects 8 (42 %) 5 (19 %) 13 (29 %)

No 0 (0 %) 2 (8 %) 2 (4 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 26 (100 %) 45 (100 %)

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire survey for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school,

2014. Table Report, section 1.7, table 48.

The table shows that, as far as the school leaders are aware of, the action plans are prepared ac-

cording to the executive order at 32% of the town schools and 50% of the village schools, while

at 42% of town schools only in some subjects. The differences may be associated with the fact

that the classes are substantially bigger at the town schools, so it is harder to achieve for the indi-

vidual teacher. The school leaders who did not answer "Yes, in all subjects" have been asked

what the primary reason is why they do not, and 8 out of the 12 town school leaders reply that it

is too time consuming. Only 2 out of 12 village school leaders have the same reply. According to

6 out of 12 village school leaders, the primary reason for not doing it in the villages is that "it's

difficult to get the students to do it" (only 2 out of 12 town school leaders answer that). Some

have pointed to the answer "It is not relevant in all subjects" (2 and 3 leaders, respectively). Fi-

nally, there was this answer in the questionnaire: "It's hard to see the idea behind it." However,


no town school leaders and only 1 of 12 village school leaders chose this (Table Report, section

1.7, table 49). The latter suggests widespread support for the idea behind action plans, but prac-

tical difficulties in implementing them fully.

Action Plans according to the Teachers in the Questionnaire Survey

As mentioned above, there are three overall objectives of the action plans - to be used in the

teacher's planning and organisation of teaching, to sharpen the students' awareness of their own

learning and to provide a basis for evaluating whether the student has achieved his or her objec-

tives. Judging by the teachers' answers in the questionnaire survey, it is especially the use of eval-

uation that has been applied, while they are used to a lesser extent in planning the teaching and

in the students' reflection on their own learning.

Almost half of the teachers say that all their students make individual action plans twice a year.

74% of teachers say that at least half of their students do it (Table Report, section 2.9, Table

47).Of these 74%, there are approximately one third of the teachers who always use the action

plans in the organisation of their teaching. This corresponds to 26% of all the teachers in the sur-

vey (Table Report, section 2.9, table 48). Almost all of the 74% of teachers use the action plans

to document student learning (equivalent to 69% of all the teachers in the survey) (Table Report,

section 2.9, table 48), but, on the other hand, very few believe that the students use their action

plans to reflect on their own learning and own objectives to a large extent (Table Report, section

2.9, Table 49). This is at least how it appears from the responses of 25% of the teachers who

have answered the questionnaire survey.

If you want to go into more detail, the survey shows that 14% of the teachers answer that none

of their students are making action plans. Another 13% respond that there are more than none,

but under half, 27% believe that it is somewhere between half and three-fourth, while 47% re-

spond that all the students do. There are no significant differences between the answers of town

and village school teachers (Table Report, section 2.9, table 47). On the other hand, there is a big

difference between the answers from teachers with a Greenlandic teacher education and teach-

ers with a Danish teacher education. 47% of teachers with a Greenlandic teacher education have

answered that all their students make individual action plans twice a year, while the number is

only 28% of the teachers with a Danish education. Conversely, 10% of teachers with a Green-

landic education answer, "None", where the corresponding number of teachers with Danish ed-

ucation is 31%12. An interpretation of this might be that it requires a linguistic communication

with the individual student to make action plans together and that it may be a barrier for the

Danish teachers (Table Report section 3.1, table 2). There is also a difference between teachers

with and teachers without teacher training. A larger proportion of teachers without teacher edu-

cation answers that all their students make individual action plans, but there is also a greater pro-

portion of those who answer that no one does. On the other hand, there are fewer in the middle

categories (Table Report, section 3.1, table 3).

The part of the teachers who answered that at least half of their students make individual action

plans have been asked if they use them in the organisation of their teaching. 35% say that they

always do (corresponding to 26% of all teachers in the survey), 64% that they do sometimes

(corresponding to 47% of all) and 1% respond no (Table Report, section 2.9, table 48). If the

teachers' students have made the action plans, there is no difference to what extent the Green-

landic or Danish teachers, respectively, use them in the organisation of their education (Table Re-

port, section 3.1, Table 4). On the other hand, there are several untrained teachers who use

them. Among these, 48% say they always use them against 32% of trained teachers. There are

about equal numbers in the two groups that say they do not use them at all (Table Report, sec-

tion 3.1, table 5).

As mentioned above, the purpose of the action plans is also to enable the students to reflect on

their own learning and own objectives. The teachers have therefore been asked if they have the

12 The questionnaire survey has not asked about the language or ethnic background of the teachers, but only where they have received their education. Recognising that some Greenlandic teachers may have been educated in Denmark and vice versa, we assume that virtually all Greenlandic-educated teachers will be Greenlandic-speaking and that Danish-educated are not. Those educated in Greenlandic constitute 206 teachers in the study, and the Danish-educated 32.


impression that this occurs. To this, 12% of the teachers in the survey, whose students actually

make the action plans, answer that it is their impression it happens to a great extent. (This corre-

sponds to 7% of all teachers in the survey). 50% answer "To some extent" (equivalent to 39%

of all), 26% "to a lesser extent" and 5% "not at all" (Table Report, section 2.9, table 49). There

are no differences between town and village, but the non-educated teachers experience to a

greater extent than those educated that the students use the action plans (Table Report, section

3.1, table 6).

In turn, 94% of the teachers, whose students make action plans, answer that they themselves

use the action plans to document the children's learning. (This corresponds to 69% of all teach-

ers in the survey). Again, there is a difference between teachers with Greenlandic teacher educa-

tion and teachers with Danish, as 96% of teachers with Greenlandic teacher education in the sur-

vey respond that they use the action plans in this way (equivalent to 74% of all Greenlandic-edu-

cated teachers in the survey) while this applies to 71% of teachers with Danish education (or

31% of all Danish-educated teachers in the survey) (Table Report, section 3.1, Table 7). The non-

educated teachers use them to the same extent as the educated (Table Report, section 3.1, table

8).

In the questionnaire, the teachers who have answered that not all students have written individ-

ual action plans have been asked some suggestions as to the cause. There are only small differ-

ences between town and village school teachers (Table Report, section2.9, Table 51), and the re-

sponses of educated and non-educated teachers are equally close to each other (Table Report,

section 3.1, table 9). But again, Greenlandic and Danish teachers look differently on it:

Table 7

What challenges do you experience behind the fact that not all students write individ-

ual action plans?

Greenlandic

Teacher Education (N = 97)

Danish

Teacher Education (N = 22)

Total

(N = 119)

It is difficult for the students 51 % 73 % 55 %

The students do not know what they are

for

31 % 50 % 34 %

Other 30 % 18 % 28 %

I find that the purpose is unclear 21 % 36 % 24 %

It is too time-consuming for the students 23 % 27 % 24 %

It is too time-consuming for me 14 % 27 % 17 %

I find the material to compile them too

complicated

14 % 23 % 16 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for teachers who worked in the Greenland Primary school

in the school year 2013/2014. Table Report Section 3.1, Table 10.


Note: This question is only asked for the part of the respondents who answered "At least 3/4", "At least half",

"At least 1/4", "Less than 1/4" or "None" to the question "How many of your students make individual action

plans twice a year".

The table shows that the largest proportion of Greenlandic-educated as well as Danish-educated

teachers believe that the main reason why some students do not develop individual action plans

is that it is too difficult for the students. It accounts for half (51%) of Greenlandic-educated

teachers in the questionnaire survey and 73% of the Danish-educated. Looking at what the sec-

ond most respondents point to, it is also the same, namely that students do not know what to

use it for, which 31% of Greenlandic-educated and 50% of Danish-educated teachers point to.

Almost equal shares (23% and 27%) consider it too time-consuming for the students, while

there are quite a large difference in how many in the two groups think the purpose is unclear.

21% of Greenlandic-educated and 36% of Danish-educated teachers say this. A little lesser part

of both groups thinks that the material to compile them with (Angusakka) is too complicated.


Different Perceptions of the Students’ Action Plans – Interview with the Teachers

In the interviews you get some more detailed suggestions as to why some teachers use action

plans with their students and why some do not. At some schools, it is something all teachers use,

at some schools there are only some who do it and at other schools again, it is not used at all.

In a big town school, where it is clearly used correctly, a teacher explains that the students make

their action plan in the form of a learning circle together with the rest of the class based on the

learning objectives. She says:

When the school starts, we make such a learning circle in class. For example, one should learn to read, dictate, supplementary words ... and then after three to four months we make individual action plans. Then they transfer what they haven’t learned. Then they make an action plan individually. In April-May, we evaluate what they have learned by talk-ing about them. Then we take the learning circle and look at whether they have learned what they have planned. Then the year has passed, and then we come to the next class. Then we take the old learning circle, talk individually about it and make a new learning cir-cle.

A teacher from a village school explains accordingly:

Earlier, students made action plans based on what they wanted to learn altogether, i.e. also in their spare-time. But now we have divided it into subjects. We use learning circles. We show them the learning objectives, and the students fill in the learning circle them-selves. The parents get to see it - it's good - and it hangs on the wall in the classroom.

In my class we talk about it and we also have to colour the circles gradually. In my class there was something they did not think they have learned so well yet, so we have not started colouring yet. We will do that by the autumn holiday. It makes good sense. It re-quires us teachers to know what the students want. It does not matter that they want something different; we get through it all in good time. I have shown them the learning objectives and mention them regularly so that they get to know them.

Another village school teacher says:

We are learning to use the circular plan. The students understand it well. The oldest stu-dents add their own things. We also use it to plan changes in their behaviour. We can al-ready feel that it works.

Throughout the interviews, the interviewees suggest that there is a lot of satisfaction with the

learning circles as a method. A teacher says it takes a lot of time, but it gives a good focus. An-

other teacher even believes that it is "indispensable" if all students are to reach the learning ob-

jectives.

It is not everywhere that it is used consistently. For example, at a school, students choose the sub-

jects for which they want to make action plans.

However, some teachers are also critical of the action plans and therefore do not use them. Some

believe that it takes too much time in relation to the yield, but in several places there are also

doubts as to whether it makes sense. For example, a teacher says it may be good to raise aware-

ness among the students, but it is often hard for them to figure out what they want, so they

"just try to wonder what the teacher’s expectations are". In addition, more respondents point

out that the students find it hard to understand what the learning objectives are, and corre-

spondingly reflecting on their own learning and assessing their strengths and limitations, not to

mention setting objectives for themselves. A teacher does not believe that it makes sense because

there are some basic skills that students must have no matter what and only room for some free-

dom of choice that they can only utilise in a conscious way when they have the basics in place:

"They do not know what they have to learn or what opportunities there are." Several also point


out that it is difficult for the younger students. Finally, it can be difficult to organise teaching

based on the students' very different action plans, some believe.

A leader is very critical of the action plans altogether. He thinks it's "totally black" and a waste of

time. According to his experience, the objectives are often reduced to something about behav-

iour ("I have to get better at being there on time", etc.). Where the intention was that the action

plans should create dedication of the students, he sees it turned into, "we are making very small

demands on ourselves." He does not relate to whether it is something inherent in the action

plans or if the teachers have a responsibility for the way they are used. One could also see it in

the sense that he himself has a responsibility of ensuring that the teachers are doing it the right

way. He has not been directly asked about this, but it appears from the context that he does not

believe that the teachers have the necessary skills to elevate the action plans to the intended

level.

Looking at a concrete example, it appears that the objectives are very broadly formulated and

that behaviour plays an important role. For example, a student's action plan looks like this (writ-

ten from a circle to a form - the outermost circles are at the top of the chart):

Greenland Danish Needlework/

woodwork

Mathematics Together with

the other

children

At home In my

spare

time

Asking

questions

Names of

body parts

Ways of draw-

ing

Sizes I want to learn to

say no

Dish-

washing

Soccer

Writing Words for

tools

Gather mate-

rials to make

something of

Location To tell if I’m sad Sweeping Sports

To listen Words for

animals

To make

something

based on an

idea

The calendar To tell if I need

help

Dusting To have

fun

To write

emails

Customs/

traditions

The form of

houses

Forms Cooking To have a

nice time

The example illustrates the need for teachers to manage the formulation of objectives more so that

they comply with the requirements of the executive order that they should be based on the learning

objectives / sub-objectives of the teaching and "be formulated so clearly and concretely that the

students themselves can assess whether and to what extent the relevant objectives have been

achieved "(guidance to the Executive Order on Evaluation and Documentation, page 6). In the

example, there are both topics that do not relate to the learning objectives of the teaching (the last

three columns) and objectives that you can hardly determine if you have reached ("writing", "cus-

toms / traditions", "football", "to have fun” etc.). It is more likely that the student has described

activities that she has to attend rather than objectives for what she should learn.

Finally, a village school leader points to what she may conceive as a deep cultural phenomenon

that makes it difficult for her students to write action plans: "All children have a dream but they

do not want to talk about it." Again, it must be the teacher's task to get it down on paper where

it can be handled and formulated concretely - without conflicting with the child's dreams.

The Direct Impact of the Action Plans on the Students

Several teachers in the interviews believe that the action plans work consciously on the students.

A teacher in the senior classes says that students should follow their action plans and see if they

reach their objectives and if they do not reach them, they should consider why. He says that at

first it was a little confusing for the students, but it makes sense: "They can see what happens if

they do not make homework." Another teacher is a little sceptical, believing you have to be

aware of the fact that the students’ self-assessment is characterised by the teachers' assessment

of them and thus not an expression of the students’ own reflection. A teacher has never ob-

served the students return to their action plans. He just thinks it's good that they formulate some

objectives for themselves.


The students in a 9th grade, who always make action plans, think it is good, "because you know

what to learn." But as one of them points out, it may also be "a little scary when you find that

there is something you cannot!" Students explain that they spend a lot of time making them and

that their parents see them too, but that it is different how much they look at them.

Materials for the Preparation of Action Plans and Evaluation

Almost all leaders (all town school leaders and 25 out of 26 village leaders in the survey) indicate

that they use Angusakka to evaluate students' learning outcomes. In addition, some use locally

crafted materials (Table Report, section 1.7, table 50). During the visits at the schools, it was

found that many, as mentioned in the previous section, use a so-called learning circle instead of

the Angusakka template for students' action plans. In the learning circle, skills within different

skill areas of the "layer pieces" are written in a circle with those to be achieved first at the centre.

As the skills are achieved, students must then colour the relevant fields.

Regarding the learning circle, employees from Inerisaavik's evaluation department explain that it

is really a tool developed by Dafolo in Denmark for on-going evaluation. The idea is that the

"layer pieces" should represent skill areas within the individual subjects. It is not something that

has been taught, or which is taught at college, and it requires expertise to use it. The employees

have noted that many copy the method without really understanding the ideas behind it.

3.3.2 The Parents and Angusakka

An important purpose of the action plans and the follow-up evaluations in the Angusakka system

is that the parents should be able to get concrete information about their children's learning and

objectives so that they can support it at home. But that side of it does not work - judging by the

parent interviews - as it should.

The parents do not experience that they, through Angusakka, get concrete information about

how their child is doing academically and how they can support. A highly educated mother says

it's a bit unclear how to use the feedback in Angusakka. She could do without it. She does not

seem to know anything concrete, she can take action based on - it does not point out what she

can do as a parent.

A parent couple explains that a year can pass by without they receive an invitation for school-

home conversation at all. They think many parents do not know how to support their children.

They live in a town now, but have also lived in a village where they experienced more clear and

permanent objectives in the school.

Also in two other towns, parents tell about the action plans and Angusakka that it depends a lot

on the teacher what they are used for. They have not experienced receiving specific instructions.

Teachers only praise students in general terms. Also, a parent whose son has had some chal-

lenges still only received praise.

A consultant in Inerisaavik confirms the parent's view that the evaluations made by many teach-

ers are too unupported and should be concrete so that parents and students can actively relate to

them.

A teacher writes in the questionnaire that one of the three biggest challenges in school is to "put

words on the children's skills and objectives" in Angusakka. When teachers do not do it to a

greater extent, it's probably because they think it's difficult.

3.3.3 Summary and Assessment – The Students’ Individual Action Plans

The questionnaire surveys show that it is far from all students who make action plans in all sub-

ject areas, as otherwise provided in the executive order. Some do, and some teachers also use

them as intended - as part of the organisation of their teaching or as a tool in the documentation

of the students' learning outcomes, and some also assess that the students use the action plans

to reflect on their own learning and own objectives. But there are at least as many who do not -

it seems that it is too difficult for the students, it make no sense, or the effort does not match the

yield.


Judging from visits to schools, the action plans work especially well in the towns, for example,

they are hanging on the walls of the classrooms, and the teachers were positive towards them.

This may be due to the fact that there are significantly fewer students to which the teachers must

relate and that it will therefore be a more feasible task. In the small places where there are only

one to two children at each year group, the teaching is also organised very individually in ad-

vance.

However, the concrete action plans that have been accessed have, to a certain extent, confirmed

the statements of the critics pointing out that the objectives formulated by the students do not

always live up to the intentions. For example, they may be too general (so the student cannot see

their own progress), deal with behaviour (which has nothing to do with learning) or set the ambi-

tions too low (so they maintain the student in too slow progression rather than encourage learn-

ing). However, it is striking that none of the critics mention that it must be the teachers' task to

instruct the students so that their action plans become meaningful.

If you look a little, it is thoughtful to compare this chapter with the descriptions of the students in

section 6.1.2 (Teachers and Leaders' Explanations of the Challenges), where a picture emerges

several places of students with no motivation and who cannot see the meaning of going to

school at all. Action plans should in fact help create motivation and determination.

The questionnaires for the teachers have also provided some interesting answers that show that

the action plans are apparently used and perceived very similar by teachers in towns and villages,

and by educated and non-educated teachers, while, on the other hand, there are quite significant

differences in how teachers with Greenlandic education and Danish education, respectively, use

and perceive them. Danish teachers use the action plans to a much lesser extent than their

Greenlandic colleagues. An immediate bid for the reason for this difference may be that Danish

teachers are limited by not having a nuanced language in common with the students, making it

difficult to formulate something like action plans with them.

3.4 Level Tests and Other Evaluation The level tests have been introduced with the school reform. There are nationwide written tests

in Greenlandic, Danish and Mathematics after 3rd grade (i.e. at the end of the junior level) and in

Greenlandic, Danish, Mathematics and English after 7th grade (i.e. at the end of the intermediate

level). The tests have only in recent years started becoming a routine, something all schools are

implementing.

Level tests serve several purposes. Based on the guidelines13 you can deduce the following:

Level tests have to:

1 Support the individual student’s learning and development

2 Support the teacher’s organisation of the teaching by providing information on the students

when he or she take over the students on the next level

3 Provide an evaluation of the completed teaching for adaptations and improvements for the

next classes of students

4 Provide comparable data at national level, so schools can compare themselves with others,

and from at central level the development of the academic level can be followed.

The section shows that, in particular, objective 4 has caught on and, to some extent, objective 2,

while it is a little more complex with objectives 1 and 3.

The interviews generally show that there is a great deal of attention on the level tests from both

leaders and teachers, and bad results are taken seriously as something to be dealt with. But from

there, however, there are differences in how thoroughly the schools and teachers deal with it. For

example, approximately one third of teachers have never used results from a level test - or other

13 Guidelines on Home Rule Executive Order no. 2 of 9 January on the evaluation and documentation in the Primary school. Inerisaavik, September 2009.


evaluation - to change their teaching (cf. objective 3), according to the questionnaire survey (Ta-

ble Report, section 2.13, table 58).

3.4.1 Overall Use of the Level Test Results

For a long time, the schools allegedly considered the level tests as something that was just to be

made and sent to Inerisaavik (cf. the last part of objective 4). They did not look at the results

again. Today, schools use them to compare themselves to each other, and both municipal admin-

istrations and school leaders pay close attention to the results. In many places, effort areas are

designed based on weak results in the level tests (the rest of objective 4).

All leaders who have been interviewed in connection with the evaluation keep an eye on the level

tests and bring it before the teachers if they think there is something that requires extra effort. At

a school, for example, the leader says she can see that the level is dropping and she wants to

bring it back up. Among other things, the level tests have revealed that the students in the 3rd

grade cannot read and something needs to be done. She explains that at the school - before she

arrived - they did not pay attention to the learning objectives, but they are now. For the leaders,

the level tests also show whether there are teachers whose performance is completely dissimilar

altogether, and there are examples that teachers have been taken away from teaching in specific

subject areas due to poor level tests. At one school, the results of the level tests also convinced

the management that the former principle of having very few teachers to teach all subject areas

in each class meant that the academic level became too low. So now the management places the

teachers according which subject areas they have the best skills to teach and with better results

after that, it is believed. (cf. more about the level co-operation in section 5.2).

The interviews have made no suggestions as for what can be done specifically in relation to the

individual teacher or the individual class to "lift the level".

One teacher among the interviewees is critical of the tests as such. He points out that it is prob-

lematic that you only test the students in the academic subjects. He thinks that you thereby might

require something academically of some students who are actually better at something else. But

that is something that is not measured and it provides a distortion. Another teacher believes that

the tests provide a wrong picture, because they use a completely different method than the stu-

dents are used to working with and they are afraid of making mistakes. Other teachers, on the

other hand, supplement with other tests on their own, especially reading tests, because they

think there is too long a period of time between the level tests.

3.4.2 Level Tests as Evaluation

Some teachers use the level tests as an evaluation – cf. objective no. 3. One village school teacher

says:

We have begun to use the results. Earlier, it did not mean anything to me, but I think it has been a help. I find out if there is anything we have missed and adjust the teaching accord-ingly.

To see if it is generally used as feedback on the teaching, the teachers in the questionnaire survey

have been asked: "Have the results of a level test or another evaluation made you change your

teaching?"


Table 8

Have the results of a level test or another evaluation of the students' learning outcomes

made you change your teaching?

Town School (N = 207) Village School (N = 53)

Total (N = 260)

Yes, several times 36 % 43 % 37 %

Yes, some times 28 % 15 % 25 %

No 36 % 42 % 37 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for teachers who worked in the Greenlandic Primary school

in the school year 2013/2014. Table Report Section 2.13, table 59.

The table shows that 37% of the teachers in the study have not tried to change their teaching as

a result of an evaluation such as a level test, while another 37% have several times. In both

groups there are more village school teachers than town school teachers, who in turn choose to a

greater extent the middle category "Yes, sometimes". Teachers with Danish teacher education

and Greenlandic teacher education, respectively, correspond almost similarly to this question (Ta-

ble Report, section 3.1, table 11). However, there is a statistically significant difference between

the answers depending on whether the teacher is a trained teacher or not:

Table 9

Have the results of a level test or another evaluation of the students' learning outcomes

made you change your teaching?

Trained

Primary school Teacher (N = 219)

Un-Trained

Primary school Teacher (N = 41)

Total (N = 260)

Yes, several times 40 % 24 % 38 %

Yes, some times 27 % 15 % 25 %

No 32 % 61 % 37 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %


in the school year 2013/2014. Table Report, section 3.1, table 12.

The table shows that 40% of educated teachers have repeatedly changed their teaching as a re-

sult of an evaluation, while it only applies to 24% of the non-educated teachers in the survey.

61% of them answer no to the question. Only 32% of the educated do that. This probably indi-

cates that the educated teacher has more tools in his/her toolbox and can change his/her teach-

ing if there is a reason, whereas the non-educated does not have the same opportunities.

3.4.3 Level Tests in a Forward-Looking Perspective

Objective 2 of the level tests, namely to inform recipient teachers at the next level about the stu-

dents' prerequisites, seems to be reasonably widespread according to the interviews.

One leader describes it like this:

The level tests are used at the transition from level to level, from one team to the next, so the new teachers are ready. If there is anything that lags behind, you can adjust classes with two teachers, small extra courses for selected children, etc. The first feedback is posi-tive. On the other hand, it is not used as an evaluation of the teachers handing over. This is something they have to work on.

However, there may be the challenge that the three levels in many schools work very isolated

from each other, so the teachers do not have much cooperation or communication across the

levels. It also seems that the receiving 4th or 8th grade teachers do not get information on the

level tests which their students have completed.


3.4.4 Level Tests as a Support Measure for the Individual Student

The degree, to which the level tests are used to support the individual student's learning and de-

velopment, cf. Objective No. 1, is unclear. In many places, it is reported that the results are not

available at the individual level, similarly there are parents who say they cannot get hold of them.

However, it is a misunderstanding, which will be elaborated in the following section.

In the questionnaire, the teachers have been asked: "Have the results of a level test or another

kind of evaluation of the students' learning outcomes made you focus especially on students who

have proven to be academically weak?"

55% of the teachers in the survey answer "Yes, several times", while 22% respond "Yes, some-

times" and 22% answer no. There are no significant differences between town and village

schools (Table Report section 2.3, table 59) and between Danish and Greenlandic educated

teachers (Table Report, section 3.1, table 13). The non-educated teachers are slightly less likely to

answer "Yes, several times" than those educated and similarly a little more likely to answer no,

but this difference is not statistically significant (Table Report, section 3.1, table 14).

3.4.5 Administration of Level Tests

Generally, school leaders and teachers are positive about the level tests, but the leaders do how-

ever also meet opposition among teachers. It is apparently not due to the tests as such, but more

the administration of them. Some teachers say they think there is a big "mystery mongering" in

connection with the tests. They do not get the results automatically, and they cannot understand

that they or the parents cannot get the results of the individual children. They do not know the

results of the 7th grade level test when they receive students in 8th grade. A leader believes that

the system is not very user friendly - that it is difficult to use for teachers. In one school, the

teachers say that the management does not want to involve them in the results of the level tests

on the grounds that it is "just something to be sent to Inerisaavik". But the management of the

school thinks, it is the teachers who are not interested in them.

The fact is that in recent years, the system has been adapted so that teachers have to correct the

tests and send the corrected assignments to Inerisaavik and then ensure that "the students, their

other teachers and parents are informed of the student's performance and results."14 In addition,

Inerisaavik has prepared a spreadsheet that the teacher can apply for the results to get a more

aggregate and analytical application of the results, both for the individual student and for the

class. This spreadsheet can also provide the teacher with the results so that he or she does not

have to wait for Inerisaavik to process the corrected assignments, which may take some time.

However, the employees in Inerisaavik are fully aware that the spreadsheet is not particularly

user-friendly and many teachers find it difficult to use. However, the guide also indicates that the

teacher should use "the students' results of the level tests together with information from on-

going evaluation, presentation of their own work in 3rd grade and the subject-oriented assign-

ment in 7th grade in connection with the school's development work", and ensure that "the 3rd

grade's level test results are passed on to the teachers who will teach the same students when

they reach 4th grade. The same applies for the transition from 7th to 8th grade."

Thus, when some teachers find that there are results they do not get to see or show to the par-

ents, then it is a directly wrong way of managing the system.

3.4.6 On-going Evaluation

According to the Executive Order on Evaluation and Documentation, teachers must continuously

evaluate the student's yield, both to have a better basis for planning the teaching as well as to

assess and guide the students. The interviews with the leaders give the impression of very diverse

practices - from schools, where it is routine, to schools where it does not take place at all.

14Cf. Guidelines for level tests from Inerisaavik: http://www.inerisaavik.gl/fileadmin/user_upload/Inerisaavik/Trintest-mappe/A22c_Retningslinjer_for_Trintest_2014_da.pdf.


One leader from a small village school says:

On-going evaluations are non-existent. No more than a quarter of the teachers do it. They are academically well-founded, but the rest cannot. Nor are they capable of making an an-nual plan - it just becomes something in very broad terms. They do not understand what learning objectives are and they do not evaluate. This also applies to teachers who come from outside.

In a big town school, however, it looks quite different. The leader says:

We strongly support on-going evaluations. We have divided all teaching plans into year groups. There are clear requirements and prompt clarity on support needs. On-going eval-uation is very important. Teachers make small tests, analyses why some do not learn what they have been working on. We try to give them some tools such as class logs, and show them how it can make work easier for teachers when they use Angusakka. Class teams and year group teams must use it as a tool. Almost everyone does.

And in some places, it is more mixed. Here at another big town school, the leader says:

Not everyone makes on-going evaluations. The teachers on two of the levels are very skilled, but at one of the levels they lag slightly behind. It's also where the bad teachers are. Some teachers are not systematic, and it is apparent. However, most of them have a system for the evaluation and contact with the parents.

At a village school, it happens more on a daily basis: "We talk continuously about our stu-

dents,"is it going well?", "Could this be better?", "the leader elaborates. Finally, there is a small

town school where the leader openly acknowledges that it is missing:

We do not use on-going evaluations, only Angusakka. We have talked about it. We would really like to, we need it very much. We also work too much individually.

In order to get a general picture, the school leaders in the questionnaire survey have been asked

whether they have the impression that the teachers do this - "Is it your impression that the teach-

ers are working on a continuous evaluation of the students' learning in everyday life (beyond ac-

tion plan and testimony)?”. 52% of the leaders respond that all the teachers or most of them do

(47% of town school leaders and 56% of village school leaders). 53% of town school leaders

and 40% of village school leaders believe that some of the teachers do. A single village school

leader does not believe that any of the teachers do (Table Report, section 1.7, table 51).

Inerisaavik is involved in school development projects, for example, working towards getting a

concept for on-going evaluations. The consultants experience success in some places, but some

schools do not move forward - it may be because of older teachers who do not have the courage

or they claim there is "no time", there are [too] "many students" or that it may not succeed due

to lack of cooperation or lack of common objectives.

3.4.7 The Significance of Evaluation

Evaluation by itself is not interesting - the interesting thing is whether it is used for something,

i.e. as a basis for developing what you are evaluating. The school leaders have therefore been

asked whether they believe systematic documentation and evaluation have led to overall changes

at the school in relation to the teaching, the pedagogy, the team division or the like.


Table 10

Have systematic documentation and evaluations given rise to overall changes at the

school in relation to the teaching, the pedagogy, the team division or the like?



Yes, to a great extent 2 (11 %) 3 (12 %) 5 (11 %)

Yes, to some extent 13 (68 %) 13 (50 %) 26 (58 %)

To a lesser extent 2 (11 %) 5 (19 %) 7 (16 %)

No 2 (11 %) 5 (19 %) 7 (16 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 26 (100 %) 45 (100 %)



"Systematic documentation and evaluation" include not only on-going evaluation but also level

tests, final tests, etc. According to the leaders' responses, two town schools (11%) and three vil-

lage schools (12%) have experienced that the evaluations lead to overall changes in the practice

of the school to a great extent, while four and ten schools respectively (22% and 38%) only to a

lesser extent or not at all.

3.4.8 Summary and Assessment – Level Tests and On-going Evaluation

The level tests have four objectives. Inerisaavik handles one of these by collecting, analysing and

communicating the results at national level. It is then up to the schools to use these results, and

by all accounts it happens to a large extent - primarily in the form of the formulation of areas of

effort in relation to subjects with weak results. It may also be that some teachers are removed

from teaching specific subjects following poor level test results.

The three other objectives that the schools themselves have to carry out are fulfilled to a greater

extent. At a single school among the visited, the level tests are described as something that are

used 1) to inform the receiving teacher on how the class is doing, 2) for the delivering teacher to

adjust his/her teaching, and 3) to assess the individual student. Otherwise, the typical picture of

the schools as such is that only one or two of these objectives are met.

It is seemingly widespread that the teachers in grades 4 and 8 use the results of the level tests in

the organisation of their teaching, but in some places it fails due to lack of communication be-

tween the levels.

40% of the educated teachers in the questionnaire survey answer that they have used the results

as an evaluation of their own teaching, specifically expressed by an adjustment of their teaching

because of the results of the level tests (Table Report, section 3.1, table 12). This indicates rela-

tively great openness among teachers in trying new ways when something is not working. The

non-educated teachers are significantly less likely to change their teaching as a result than the ed-

ucated teachers.

More than half of the teachers in the questionnaire survey answer that the results of a level test

or another evaluation of the students' learning outcomes have repeatedly made them focus spe-

cifically on students who have proven to be academically weak (Table Report, section 2.13, table

60). At the same time, however, there are some teachers in the interviews who indicate that they

are finding it difficult to use the individual results for evaluation and follow-up on their students,

primarily for purely practical reasons, as the results are not available to them. However, it is a mis-

understanding, and the question is whether it is only a practical problem (that they experience

difficulties using the spreadsheet (correct sheet) which is supposed to provide them with infor-

mation of issues they have to address) or whether it is a deeper lack of understanding of the pur-

pose and task. It may also be that the school management may not adequately support and moti-

vate for finding the solution to this task.


In spite of the widespread "system failures", there are some schools where the level tests func-

tion as intended, and according to the view of the evaluation consultants at Inerisaavik, Green-

land is also "far ahead of other countries using the tests as formative evaluation", but they would

like to communicate it better. They also point out that it is important for the teachers' motivation

for their work to receive the results that are important to them.

As far as the on-going evaluation of teaching is concerned, the interviews show a very large

spread in practice - from the school mentioned, where almost all teachers do it, to schools where

it does not actually take place. In between, there are schools where some teachers use it. Teach-

ers, whose leaders characterise them as particularly skilled. The questionnaire survey among the

leaders shows that just under half of them believe that only some of the teachers use on-going

evaluations (Table Report, section 1.7, table 51). Given that it is a legal requirement, and that the

leaders therefore could be encouraged to say “of course, it is used by all”, it is a remarkably small

proportion. On the other hand, 69% of the leaders believe that systematic documentation and

evaluation have led to overall changes in their school (Table Report, section 1.7, table 53).

The overall impression is, with the 2002 school reform, an evaluation system has been developed

that can work in practice, but as most places still lacks to be systematic and generally widespread.

The level tests have at least managed to draw attention to the fact that students must reach cer-

tain milestones during schooling - and not just at the final test at the end. However, it is only in

recent years that schools have been given the opportunity for and have started to actively relate

to the level test results and use them as an evaluation of the teaching.

Although it is obviously quite different from school to school and not least from teacher to

teacher, one can say that a basis for a general evaluation culture or understanding has been cre-

ated. There is still some way to go - partly in terms of practical obstacles to be overcome, partly in

the distribution to the third of the teachers who do not participate today.


The junior level in a village school doing mathematics, Ikamiut

Joint productive activity in 1st grade, Sisimiut


4 The Students

From the commission of this evaluation, in the description of the topics it had to look at, it ap-

pears that children with special needs should be given special attention. It is therefore revealed to

what extent teachers, leaders and PPR believe that the school is able to provide children with spe-

cial needs the appropriate education and the necessary care. Questions have been asked on the

organisation of teaching for these children, resources, etc., both in the questionnaires and inter-

views, and interviews with all four PPR offices have been conducted. The results of these will be

discussed later in this chapter. In the course of the evaluation, as it has been found that the stu-

dents are generally a central theme. In the questionnaire survey among the teachers, as men-

tioned earlier, they were asked to indicate the three biggest challenges that their school has in

these years. And by far the biggest single challenge mentioned by more than half of the teachers

is the students. It should be noted that it is not students with special needs, but problems with

the students' behaviour. The chapter therefore begins by looking into this.

4.1 Students with Inappropriate Behaviour When the teachers in their questionnaire were asked to name the school's three biggest chal-

lenges in free text, without set answers, 122 out of the 203, who wrote something, mentioned

problems with the students; a lot more than those who have identified challenges in cooperation,

management, resources, etc. (Table Report, section 3.2, table 2). The answers that point to chal-

lenges with the students can be grouped into four subcategories. The table below shows how

these are distributed.

Table 11

The teachers' open answer to "the three biggest challenges that their school has in

these years"

- answers that are about the students

Teachers at town schools

Teachers at village schools

Inappropriate behaviour 72 12

Social problems 20 1

The students’ academic level 16 7

Students with special needs 10 8

Other 4 2

Total 122 30


in the school year 2013/2014. Table Report, section 3.2, table 2.

It appears from the count that a total of 72 teachers from town schools and 12 from village

schools have mentioned problems related to student behaviour as one of the three biggest chal-

lenges the school has. They write about troubled or aggressive students, lack of respect for the

school or teachers, bullying, negligence, lack of commitment and motivation and inability to con-

centrate and cooperate. 21 teachers in total mention social problems and lack of parental sup-

port (which is thus expressed in inappropriate behaviour), 23 mention that the students' aca-

demic level is too low or too difficult to lift and finally, 18 teachers report difficulties in teaching

students with special needs appropriately.


The figures have not been calculated in percentage as the categorisation of the answers is made

by EVA, but it appears that behaviour plays a relatively much greater role for town school teach-

ers than for the village schools. Relatively more teachers in the towns are challenged by the stu-

dents' academic level and having to teach children with special needs.

The Perspective of the Parents

Some of the interviewed parents also have a view on the teachers' challenges with the students.

They acknowledge that a big part of the teaching involves educating the children and that the

teachers have too few tools to deal with children with problems. However, a parent wonders why

they have not learned it on "some of the many courses they participate in", as she formulates it.

At the same time, one points out that it is not only something that the teacher should be able to

handle in isolation - it requires an organisation to draw on and support. An organisation that ap-

parently is not always present. (This is also highlighted in Chapter 6 on cooperation and Chapter

7 on school management). But at the same time, the parents are critical of the basic approach of

the teachers to the students. A parent, who is actually also a teacher, puts it like this:

It becomes like this that the problem is inherent in the child - or the parents should do something about it. There is a lack of acknowledgement that this is happening in an inter-action and that it is in the interaction, it must be solved. (...)It is difficult to solve any prob-lem if you just say "it is their problem over there". (...)I think that, as a school, we are very much involved in creating these students. By doing nothing, by not handling it ... It is my biggest concern for my own daughter. It is so easy to adopt those bad habits. I actually have no confidence that it changes, so it's only a matter of whether we as parents can re-sist it from home.

Another parent follows up:

It is simply not recognised that this is not working. You blame each other. Teachers blame the parents that the students are not school ready. The parents blame the teachers for not providing the correct teaching. The politicians hide behind the legislation.

The parents therefore experience that teachers do not take their part of responsibility for the is-

sues not working in the relationship – in this case, the students.

4.1.2 Assessment – Students with Inappropriate Behaviour

The fact that the students' behaviour is what the teachers regard as the school's greatest chal-

lenge seems alarming. It may be a sign of an overall societal crisis that so many students find it

difficult to enter into the social context that the school is, and even worse - that they do not have

the motivation to learn. But conversely, you might also say that many teachers obviously find it

difficult to create an appropriate learning environment for the students they do have. It is a task

for the school, i.e. teachers, management and decision makers, to find out how to create a learn-

ing environment so that the teaching makes sense and motivates students, and how best to

make the parents support this effort. As parents and some teachers in the evaluation point out,

there is a tendency to push the responsibility away and close their eyes to the fact that the school

itself helps create the children who cause problems. This is perhaps the most important thing to

handle in the future.

One leader at a big town school has experience with the school being able to do something to

change status quo. She explains that she has had many conversations with the parents of trou-

bled children and that it has helped. The school has had many problems with vandalism, and she

connects it to some parents talking negative about the school at home. But the problem has

been reduced. In addition, she points out that the students have become calmer because the

teachers have become better at dealing with them, among other things, through assertive com-

munication.

Having said that, we turn to the children who have special needs because they have permanent

disabilities, are neglected or traumatised and therefore have difficulty following the general

teaching. We are going to look at what the school is doing for them.


4.2 Children with Special Needs Children with special needs are a broad term for children who, for various reasons, find it difficult

to follow the general teaching on an equal footing with other children. They, therefore, have

"special needs" for a support teacher, another organisation of the teaching, special care or the

like.

It is a very broad concept and hence difficult topic to cover, in terms of methodology, because

the specific needs can cover a wide variety of states - physical and mental, chronic and tempo-

rary, individual and relational - which are expressed differently in the teaching and poses different

requirements for the teacher. What and how many children it concerns is not easy to determine.

There is a group who has been approved for support, possibly based on a diagnosis, but in addi-

tion, there will be children waiting for an examination, and therefore, receive no support (yet)

and are not counted in the statistics. Finally, there will be children whose needs are not demand-

ing in the ordinary sense but still "noticeable" in the teaching situation.

In the evaluation we have tried to get a picture of all these aspects. Based on the teachers' expe-

rience of the task in the daily teaching, we look into the children who are attending special edu-

cation, the organisation of this and the skills available to them at the schools. Finally, we look at

the neglected children who do not need specially organised teaching, but who need care in order

to benefit from the teaching.

How many children it concerns, we have tried to get an impression by asking the school leaders

the following question in the questionnaire survey: "How many children with difficulties (which

affect their learning or well-being) are there at the school?" Here we will therefore not take into

account whether children are diagnosed, receive support or other - but just ask whether they

have "difficulties".

Table 12

How big a proportion of the school's students are children with difficulties (which affect

their learning or well-being)?

SOUTH

(N = 8)

NUUK

(N = 8)

CENTRAL

(N = 4)

DISCO BAY

(N = 9)

NORTH

(N = 6)

EAST

(N = 5)

Total

(N = 40)

0-5 % 2

(25 %)

1

(13 %)

0

(0 %)

4

(44 %)

3

(50 %)

0

(0 %)

10

(25 %)

6-10 % 2

(25 %)

2

(25 %)

1

(25 %)

3

(33 %)

3

(50 %)

2

(40 %)

13

(33 %)

11-15 % 0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

2

(50 %)

0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

2

(5 %)

16-20 % 0

(0 %)

1

(13 %)

0

(0 %)

1

(11 %)

0

(0 %)

1

(20 %)

3

(8 %)

21-25 % 1

(13 %)

3

(38 %)

0

(0 %)

1

(11 %)

0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

5

(13 %)

Over 25 % 3

(38 %)

1

(13 %)

1

(25 %)

0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

2

(40 %)

7

(18 %)

Total 8

(100 %)

8

(100 %)

4

(100 %)

8 (

9 100 %)

6

(100 %)

5

(100 %)

40

(100 %)

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school. Table

Report section 3.1, table 17.

Note: The numbers in this table are constructed by crossing the respondents' answers to the questions "How

many children with difficulties (which affect their learning or well-being) are there at the school? and "How many

children are there at the school altogether?" with each other.

SOUTH = the municipality Kujalleq. NUUK = Nuuk and Paamiut with villages. CENTRAL = Qeqqata Kommunia

(Qeqqata Municipality). DISKO = Towns and villages in the Disco Bay + Kangaatsiaq. NORTH = Uummannaq, Uper-

navik and Qaanaaq with villages. EAST = Towns and villages on the East Coast.


In the majority of the schools, children with difficulties represent less than 10%. (In 10 schools

there are 5% or less, and in 13 schools it is 6-10%). 10% of the children correspond to two chil-

dren in a class of 20 students. In the following intervals, there are a few schools, but most notice-

able is that there are 7 schools where the leader found that more than 25% of the students have

difficulties. It corresponds to five children in a class of 20 students.

4.2.1 Children with Special Needs – in the Optics of the Teachers

Judging by the questionnaire survey, many teachers are frustrated by this task. This is clearly re-

flected in the table below, which shows that half of the teachers in the town schools (who partic-

ipated in the survey) do not believe that they have sufficient opportunity to accommodate chil-

dren with special needs in their teaching. 47% say they have "To a sufficient extent" but an

equal number has answered "Insufficient". The figures for the village schools are significantly dif-

ferent - 75% of the participating teachers believe that they have sufficient opportunity to accom-

modate children with special needs in the teaching, while only 19% respond "Insufficient".

Table 13

To what extent do you feel that you have the opportunity to accommodate children

with special needs in your teaching?



To a sufficient extent 47 % 75 % 52 %

To an insufficient extent 47 % 19 % 42 %

Do not know 6 % 6 % 6 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %


in the school year 2013/2014. Table Report section 2.15, table 71.

Note: This question is only asked for the respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you taught chil-

dren with special needs during the school year 2013/14?".

Having to give children with special needs appropriate teaching is not just a challenge in relation

to these children themselves, but it can also be difficult in relation to teaching the rest of the class

in a satisfactory manner. The questionnaire survey shows that 45% of the participating town

school teachers think that children with special needs make it difficult more than half of the time.

The corresponding number for village school teachers is 22%:

Table 14

To what extent of your lessons, do you experience that children with special needs

make it difficult to give the other children the teaching they need?



In 0-24 % of the lessons 27 % 47 % 31 %

In 25-49 % of the lessons 28 % 31 % 29 %

In 50-74 % of the lessons 35 % 19 % 32 %

In 75-100 % of the lessons 10 % 3 % 8 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %


in the school year 2013/2014. Table Reports section 2.15, table 72.

Note: This question is only asked for the respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you taught chil-

dren with special needs during the school year 2013/14?”

If you look further into the problem, you will need a clearer definition of what is meant by "chil-

dren with special needs". Basically, there are two groups that are very different:

• Children with permanent disabilities such as physical or mental disability, developmental disa-

bilities or impaired learning ability, who need specifically adapted tuition or support. These

children have been approved (or should be) for extensive special education or general special

education.


• Children who, due to trauma or negligence, have difficulty concentrating or adjusting to the

normal structure and rules in an educational situation. These children do not initially have

learning difficulties as such, but can prove difficult to teach.

When the child must attend classes in the school, it is of course very different educational chal-

lenges that arise, depending on whether the child has learning difficulties and / or a behaviour

which interferes with the teaching of the child and the other students.

In general, the evaluation shows that children with permanent disabilities are not seen as a partic-

ular challenge for teachers and leaders. Much indicates that the support schemes and offers

given to these children work reasonably. However, there are also great frustrations that it may

take a long time (up to several years) to investigate / diagnose a child, who, you as a teacher for

example, would like to have a special effort initiated for, and there are lacking professional skills

to give the children the best possible effort. However, it is not possible from the interviews to de-

termine whether the children in fact are diagnosed - or in some cases they may be children with

inappropriate behaviour. It could also be both. Teachers from the special classes have been repre-

sented at most interviews at the schools and have given the impression of great commitment.

Section 4.3 looks at the offer to these children - the special education.

By contrast, the neglected children take up a lot time in some of the schools. Here, there is a lot

of frustration that they are difficult to teach and that the ability to help them is very poor because

the necessary support tools are not present, and because the teachers do not feel they have the

appropriate skills for it. We look further into this in section 4.4.

4.3 The Special Education How many children attending special education will of course depend on how many children

who need it. But "need" in this context is not an objective size, and different municipalities may

have different practices, i.e. different limits on when a need is defined as in need of support.

Figure 1

Lessons for special education as a percentage of total teaching lessons

Source: The Primary school 2013/14, Inerisaavik 2014.

General special education Extensive special education

The entire country


The graph, which is based on figures from The Primary School 2013/14, Inerisaavik 2014, shows the difference between the municipalities. In Qaasuitsup Kommunia, where there is the least spe-cial education, it is 18% of the teaching lessons, while the most is Qeqqata municipality with 31%. The distribution between general and extensive special education is also different. The fig-ure shows that in Qeqqata Kommunia, general special education represents 41% of special edu-cation, while in Kujalleq municipality it is only 19%.

Looking at the individual town schools, again using the figures from Inerisaavik, it turns out that

the proportion of teaching lessons used for special education fluctuates from 9% at the school

with the lowest to 44% at the school with the highest. In towns with more schools, it may be be-

cause they have placed the special classes at one school, but even if you look at the schools con-

stituting the only school in town, the proportion of special educational lessons varies from 16 %

to 41%. It can be for many reasons - different views of when a student needs special education

could be one, different ways of defining special education or other support measures could be

another, but it may also coincide with whether the schools with the small proportions even have

the resources (economics or teacher competences) to offer special education. It is not analysed in

detail here, but mentioned to illustrate that conditions and practices may differ from school to

school. It is difficult to make statistics at the village schools, as small numbers can produce very

large fluctuations.

The proportion of children approved for special education is also very varied. The school leaders

have been asked in the questionnaire survey how many have been approved for special educa-

tion. Their response is shown in the following table, which shows that in 33 out of 43 schools,

less than 10% are children approved for special education, and the group with the most (over

15%) is only at 4 schools. The seven schools, who had more than 25% children with difficulties

(table 12), must therefore be spread across several categories here.

Table 15

How big a proportion of the school's children have been approved for special educa-

tion?

SOUTH

(N = 8)

NUUK

(N = 8)

CENTRAL

(N = 5)

DISCO BAY

(N = 10)

NORTH

(N = 6)

EAST

(N = 5)

Total

(N = 43)

0-5 % 4

(44 %)

3

(38 %)

1

(20 %)

6

(60 %)

5

(83 %)

1

(20 %)

20

(47 %)

6-10 % 3

(33 %)

3

(38 %)

3

(60 %)

1

(10 %)

1

(17 %)

2

(40 %)

13

(30 %)

11-15 % 1

(11 %)

2

(25 %)

1

(20 %)

2

(20 %)

0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

6

(14 %)

Over 15 % 1

(11 %)

0 (0 %) 0

(0 %)

1

(10 %)

0

(0 %)

2

(40 %)

4

(9 %)

Total 9

(100 %)

8

(100 %)

5

(100 %)

10

(100 %)

6

(100 %)

5

(100 %)

43

(100 %)

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire survey for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school.

The Table Report section 3.1, table 18.


many children at the school are approved for special education? and "How many children are there at the school

in total?" with each other.

4.3.1 Organisation of the Special Education

The leaders have also been asked how the special education is organised - in developmental clas-

ses, with support teachers, etc. The results can be examined in the Table Report's section 1.11,

tables 112 and 113. They show that 16 out of 19 town schools use special classes and 13 use

support teachers in the ordinary teaching. 9 town schools have developmental or AKT classes (ed.


AKT short for behaviour, contact, development/well-being in Danish). In the village schools, 6 out

of 23 schools use special classes, while 9 have support teachers. 11 village schools organise spe-

cial education "in other ways".

The offer for children who need regular special education is based today on changing group for-

mations. Instead of support teachers for the individual students, funding is now available for di-

viding the class into smaller groups, thus taking into account the different needs of the children.

However, not all schools are using it. Among the town schools, 15 of the leaders responded in

the survey that they use changing group formation in the teaching, while 4 have replied that they

do not. In village schools, half, i.e. 13 of the leaders who answered the questionnaire, say they

do, while the other half do not (Table Report, section 1.6, table 36). The leaders who answered

yes have then been asked whether they use changing group formations for primarily educational

or practical reasons. The 15 town school leaders have all answered "Educational reasons", and of

the 13 village school leaders, the 12 have answered "Educational reasons" and 1 answered

"Practical reasons" (Table Report, section 1.6, table 37).

Finally, the leaders have been asked whether the changing group formation means that they

need to prioritise other things less because of scarce resources, and 2 of the 15 town school lead-

ers, representing 13%, and 5 of the 13 village school leaders, i.e. 38 %, replied yes to this(Table

Report section 1.6, table 38).

4.3.2 Inclusion

Inclusion is a theme that is slowly entering the Greenlandic primary school, but it is clearly not

something that occupies the mind of leaders and teachers at the schools. The word itself has not

been mentioned in the interviews, and the question whether the existing offers for children with

impaired functioning seem to be exclusionary is also not something that is on their mind. There is

a great deal of concern about whether the children get the right and qualified offer, and an eye

on the objective - even for children in special classes - that they complete their final tests and that

they have as so much contact with the ordinary class they really belong to as possible. In many

places, children from special classes can, for instance, participate in the ordinary teaching in

sports, local elective subjects, etc. In this context, it should be mentioned that caution should be

made in drawing parallels to the Danish debate on inclusion, since the Greenlandic children are

not excluded as much as in Denmark, as there are no special schools to exclude them to apart

from one for severely disabled students. It is therefore a part of everyday life that you have all the

children in the same house. As one head of administration puts it, "We cannot but include, be-

cause we do not have other places to send them to." However, of course, it is advisable to pay

attention to whether children, who can be accommodated in the ordinary classes, are sent to

special classes because you do not have the skills or resources to handle them in the ordinary

classes.

The leaders have been asked in the questionnaire on how they work with inclusion. To this, 47%

of the school leaders in towns and 46% of village school leaders say that they do not at all or

they have just begun. 10 town school leaders have answered that they do, and for eight schools

that implies they have moved students from a special to an ordinary class. 4 out of 13 village

schools have done the same. 5 out of 13 village schools have completely shut down special clas-

ses, while this has not happened in the towns. Here, however, there are 2 town schools that

have trained or employed teachers who are resource persons in connection with inclusion, and at

1 school, the entire teacher's staff has received a course in inclusion. None of the village schools

have done that (Table Report, section 1.12, table 114).

The leaders have also been asked if they generally find that teachers have the necessary level of

competence to handle inclusion. To this, 2 out of 19 town school leaders (11%) and 4 out of 24

village school leaders (17%) respond they have to a great extent, whereas 37% and 54% respec-

tively respond "to some extent". 10 of the town school leaders (53%) respond to "a lesser ex-

tent" or "Not at all", as do 7 village school leaders (29%) (Table Report, section 1.12, table 119).


4.3.3 Competences for Special Education

It is very different which skills are available for special education at the individual schools. The

general special education is largely carried out by educated teachers, but in two towns (with as-

sociated villages) also by preschool teachers. In two towns it is exclusively unskilled teachers who

have this task. The following chart shows the distribution, as percentage of registered lessons:

Figure 2

The teachers’ training – ordinary special education, registered lessons

Source: The Primary School 2013/14, Inerisaavik 2014.

Looking at the extensive special education, there are five towns (town schools and village schools

again taken as a whole), where more than 40% of the extensive special education is provided by

non-trained teachers, while at the other end of the spectrum there are two towns where more

than 50% of the extensive special education is provided by teachers with a supplementary special

education training. Five towns do not have such teachers at all.

Figure 3

The teachers’ training – extensive special education, registered lessons

Source: The Primary school 2013/14, Inerisaavik 2014.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ikke læreruddannede Forskolelærere Læreruddannede Læreruddannede med suppl. specialpæd. uddannelse

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ikke læreruddannede Forskolelærere Læreruddannede Læreruddannede med suppl. specialpæd. uddannelsePre-school teachers

Untrained teachers

Trained teachers

Trained teachers supplemented with special educational training

Untrained teachers

Pre-school teachers

Trained teachers

Trained teachers supplemented with special educational training


Overall, the figures show that only 2% of the general special education and 9% of the extensive

special education are provided by teachers with supplementary specialised educational training

and 17% and 12% respectively of this teaching are carried out by teachers without a teacher

training. Educated teachers (without supplementary education) and preschool teachers are thus

in charge of 81% of the general and 79% of the extensive special education respectively.15

4.3.4 The Teachers on Children in Need of Special Education

A continuous wish of the teachers is exactly more knowledge about the particular needs of the

diagnosed children, just as frustrations may arise in relation to children having been diagnosed

who cannot get a professionally qualified effort. For example, a teacher says that "we lack

courses on children with special needs for the teachers in the ordinary classes. It is not taught at

the teacher college." Another teacher says:

I am happy with the counselling teacher who takes care of children with behavioural and learning difficulties. She advises us. Fortunately, S-classes have been introduced to take care of them. But we lack someone who can come and observe and define their needs. Some students have a diagnosis, but there are no efforts in relation to them.

The mentioned S-classes are not special classes in the usual sense (for children with learning diffi-

culties) but some kind of "behavioural classes" where the students will learn to be students and

where everyone gradually will be absorbed into ordinary classes again.

A teacher at a small town school believes that it affected the children negatively when removing

the general special education and turning the lessons into group formation with six lessons a

week. At the school, they do not believe that it is enough - because they, as they say, "do not

have the professional competence to accommodate them".

A PPR consultant confirms that the new teachers do not have education in specialised pedagogy

and therefore they do not think they can accommodate the "difficult" students. The consultant

in question adds that the resources are also very different, cf. figures 1-3, and that some schools

are under a lot of pressure. Some children have to change school to get a relevant offer.

At one school, the inclusion theme peeps out in the sense that teachers express a feeling that

"the municipality and Government push it on us". According to the teachers, the authorities be-

lieve that it is "more important for the students to stay in the class than the academic content,

because they prioritise social life the highest". Teachers do not dare to say anything against the

priority and do not ask for help to handle the students concerned. And if they do, there is no

money, they say.

The employees of PPR have some other viewpoints on this theme, and they will be presented in

section 4.5.1.

4.4 Neglected Children Neglected children is a broad concept, but is used here for the children, who lack the care that is

necessary for them to receive training and participate in the school's social context in the manner

expected of them. Concretely, they may fail to get enough food or sleep, they may not be seen

and backed up in the school work by their parents, they may be encumbered by the parents'

abuse or they may be traumatised by abuse. In the teacher's perspective, you see a child, who is

not listening, cannot concentrate and learn, and who may interfere with the teaching through

his/her behaviour (inappropriate behaviour does not necessarily stem from neglect, but neglected

children often will have inappropriate behaviour). Judging by the interviews, it is a very big chal-

lenge to deal with the neglected children in the school system. It is not at all schools visited that

the teachers experience it, but in some places it takes a lot of energy, and here, the teachers are

15 The school principals have been asked in the questionnaire to answer whether "one or more school teachers have been trained to take care of" - children with physical disabilities / mental impairment / dyslexia / negligence, but so few have answered that the figures cannot be used. (Table Report, section 1.11, tables 108-111.)


unsure of the task and feel that they stand alone with it. It is characteristic that the support func-

tions of the schools often change. At many schools, they talk about an arrangement that has just

been cut back on and about new solutions that are in the melting pot. In some places, however,

there are also well-functioning, stable measures. For example, the teachers at a large town school

say that it is a great help to have a social counsellor at the school, as well as getting all the sup-

port and advice from PPR they need - and from the school's management.

4.4.1 A Task for the Social Services - or for the Support Functions at the School?

A leader from a town with major social problems says that the issue of neglected children is

”where we waste most resources". He does not think it makes sense to try to teach them when

their basic needs are not covered. When it is so severe, it is the task of the social services to step

in, but they are "struggling to solve the task," he says. The school makes 80-100 reports a year,

covering approx. a quarter of the school students. Some of the students give rise to reports sev-

eral times during a year. The school has had several support functions - school fairy etc. - but they

are removed on economic grounds after a few years. Now the leader looks forward to getting

the school's own social worker.

Several schools are requesting different types of support functions - psychologist, social worker,

school fairy, developmental class, etc. - and often there have previously been such schemes but

they have ceased as a result of savings. It is also different how much the counselling teacher can

take care of and assist with. In some places, it is a very experienced person, while elsewhere it is a

position that changes frequently because it is occupied as part of the lesson and subject division,

and a new and inexperienced teacher has naturally less to offer. (Read more about counselling

teachers in section 4.5.2).

At one school, the teachers experience it as a big problem, despite the fact that there are both

school fairy and counselling teachers. "Sometimes we feel more like a social administration - we

are dealing with conflict resolution, trauma and crises. It takes a lot of energy- these are external

problems that come into the school. Abuse, neglect of care. We spend a lot of time on it. "Some

teachers feel very much left to themselves handling problems with the students. They would like

more hours of support or the opportunity to offer students something other than the ordinary

class for a period of time.

Similarly, teachers in several other schools say that social issues take time from the teaching. They

would like social services to take care of it, because these are severe cases and they are very long-

lasting. Here too, they have had arrangements that have been cut back on again, and now they

wish for a social worker, a psychologist and a specialist teacher. They have AKT teachers, but they

are not educated psychologists.

Two teachers from large towns say:

It is difficult not to be affected by it. But now I have learned that it is just another task. It came as a chock to come here and see the reality is like this, especially with the abuse and neglect. You can't help but blame yourself, but we are not trained special teachers. We do not learn about it at the college.

One teacher says that "you spend a lot of time functioning as a social worker" and a colleague

follows up with further doubts: "Where is the limit for what I have to do as a teacher?!"

The Villages Are Capable of Something Special

In the villages, people are not wealthier or less unemployed than in the towns, but there is still

another social context and clarity that can make it easier to take care of children with difficulties.


A Positive Story from a Village

"Once there was a boy who had problems with his behaviour, we made an action plan

with him and his parents, and then we followed up with meetings every other week or so

for three months. Then he was back on track again. The parents were very happy about

it."

The interviewer: ”Did you receive any help from PPR in that connection?”

”No, PPR was not involved.”

Although the school leaders in one of the visited villages also sees an increasing tendency of ne-

glect and the nearest professional for the school to consult may be far away, it is as though the

problems are more manageable. The problem with troubled children is much less - it was appar-

ent during the visited lessons, and the teachers are also talking about it. A leader describes it in

the way that "the restless children here are like the most quiet ones in town" - although local

teachers, who have not worked at a town school, find it difficult to believe. Another leader says

that during the joint meetings between the main school and the villages, the other villages also

talk about uneasy students, but "we don't have that. In the small town where I also used to be a

teacher, the children did not want to go to school. They want to here. They really want to, and

there is no one who denies going because it is difficult." Another village is successful with foster

children from the town. They come from special classes, but can be accommodated in ordinary

classes in the village, as long as there are not too many at once.

4.5 Support Functions for Children with Special Needs

4.5.1 PPR – Pedagogical Psychological Counselling

The PPR is specifically located with an office in each of the four municipalities, which is why only

10 of the schools have a PPR office in the same town, while consultants must travel if they are to

see children in the other 67 schools. It is to some extent reflected in how school leaders experi-

ence PPR's accessibility.

Table 16

To which extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

It is easy to get in con-

tact with a relevant em-

ployee at PPR

It is easy to get a PPR

employee to come, when

we need a child observed

It is easy to get an ap-

pointment with PPR for

testing/examining a child

It is easy to get an ap-

pointment with PPR for

guidance or consultation

for a teacher

Is there a PPR office in the same town as the school?

Yes

No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Agree 4

(57 %)

20

(61 %)

3

(43 %)

5

(15 %)

2

(29 %)

9

(27 %)

4

(57 %)

11

(33 %)

Mostly

agree

3

(43 %)

10

(30 %)

3

(43 %)

13

(39 %)

4

(57 %)

10

(30 %)

3

(43 %)

13

(39 %)

Mostly disa-

gree

0

(0 %)

3

(9 %)

1

(14 %)

9

(27 %)

0

(0 %)

8

(24 %)

0

(0 %)

6

(18 %)

Disagree 0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

6

(18 %)

1

(14 %)

6

(18 %)

0

(0 %)

3

(9 %)

Total 7

(100 %)

33

(100 %)

7

(100 %)

33

(100 %)

7

(100 %)

33

(100 %)

7

(100 %)

33

(100 %)


Report, section 3.1, table 19.


The above table shows that school leaders, who have a PPR office in the same town and school

leaders who do not have, are just as inclined to think that "it's easy to get in touch with a rele-

vant employee at PPR" - 57% and 61% respectively agree to this. This kind of contact is of

course predominantly per phone or mail, and here the physical location is less important. But

when it comes to the types of contact that require physical presence, there is a difference.

Although there are about equal numbers in both groups who feel that "it's easy to get an ap-

pointment with PPR for testing / examining a child" (29% and 27% respectively say they agree),

there are several in the group with no PPR office in the same town who "mostly disagree" or

"disagree", namely 42% to 14%. The difference is even greater when you ask whether "It is

easy to get a PPR employee to come, when we need a child observed" - to this, 43% of the

school leaders who have a PPR office in the same town agrees against only 15% of those who

have not. 45% of these mostly disagree or disagree. The same pattern appears in the question of

whether "It easy to get an appointment with PPR for guidance or consultation for a teacher."

Overall, 48% of school leaders do not think it is easy to get a PPR employee to come and 45% do

not think it is easy to get an appointment for testing or examining a child. It is likely to give frus-

trations in dealing with children with special needs.

The employees of the PPR offices are themselves frustrated by lack of resources/employees and the

vast distances that make it difficult to cover all schools properly.

4.5.2 The Counselling Teacher

In all town schools, a counselling teacher of special education has a coordinating responsibility in

relation to children with special needs. The job descriptions are different at the different schools,

but basically the idea is that counsellors support and counsel their colleagues and are links to PPR.

For example, they are the ones collecting and forwarding recommendations to PPR, and who or-

ganise the PPR employees' visits to the school. The village schools also have to go through the

counselling teacher at the town school.

PPR is highly dependent on the counselling teachers according to the interviews with the employ-

ees at the four PPR offices. The head of PPR in one of the municipalities even considers the area

of counsellors as one of the major challenges. All PPR leaders mention that there are differences

in how good the counsellors are. Some are experienced and skilled, but that many are new and

that the frequent replacement is a problem, just as it complicates the cooperation that their tasks

and procedures are formulated differently at the individual schools. They typically have no specific

training for the function, and it is an important task for PPR to train them. However, if they are in

the workflow, it might prove successful to initiate an effort regarding a child before reporting to

PPR. One head of PPR explains that they would like to cooperate with the schools also on a more

preventive plan, but that they get many things "in the last moment".

Recommendations to PPR

It is also mentioned that the procedures for submitting a recommendation do not always work.

The recommendations are often inadequate according to the PPR employees, and they come too

fast and at too flimsy a base. A recommendation must indicate which tests (e.g. reading test,

pedagogical tests) the school has tried, and what others have tried. But often it appears that

nothing has been tried. The PPR employees take this as a sign that they are trying to say "we

need help!” The recommendations are also characterised by the fact that they are often written

without the teachers having spoken to each other first. An example can be a recommendation

that contains only one statement that a child does not work well in linguistic terms, without the

recommendation describing that there have been any educational considerations or other reflec-

tions. I.e., it has not been attempted to solve the problem at the school before the PPR is called.

When the teachers themselves are to test the children, it is also because it is wasting PPR's time if

these things are not tried before involving PPR.

A PPR employee similarly points out that the number of recommendations from individual schools

varies and this reflects different ways of looking at the children. It also reflects different percep-

tions of PPR - whether they are "experts" or "consultants". The "expert perception" produces

too many recommendations. It is based on the idea that PPR is someone that you can order to


make a diagnosis so that your problem can be solved. PPR would rather have a more consultative

approach, giving advice and guidance without "taking over" the problem from the schools.

Interestingly, some teachers have the opposite view - that it is PPR that requires a proper recom-

mendation before advising on a child. These teachers would like to use PPR more consultatively,

for example, by coming and observing a child so that you can talk about it.

One head of PPR believes that those schools functioning the best are also the schools where the

management is good.

4.6 Summary and Assessment – the Students The fact that Greenlandic children too widely are exposed to child abuse and neglect requiring an

extra effort by the school is apparent. That the financial resources to provide the children with

the relevant support are sparse is also obvious. Therefore, it is also very understandable that many

leaders and teachers are deeply frustrated that it may be difficult altogether to mount a good

teaching because there are so many social problems to overcome first.

But if you think of solutions, it is important that school leaders or teachers do not conclude that

there is nothing to do before the social problems have been resolved, or the PPR and the social

system have been granted more resources. Obviously, that would make many things easier, but

there is also room for improvement at the school - several examples from the evaluation show

this.

Both teachers and PPR employees point out that the teachers have little knowledge from the

teacher training regarding children with special needs. If these students are to be handled in the

ordinary teaching, the teachers must have the necessary skills for it. It has all to do with the

teacher training and retraining. But a teacher also points out that "you can do much yourself,

when it comes to children with diagnoses. It is very much up to the individual teacher to prepare

and familiarise themselves with things."

Several teachers also believe that they themselves have a responsibility. A teacher in a small town

with major social problems thinks that it is important not to use the children's background as an

excuse for all that's not successful. "We must also try to make teaching more interesting," she

says. Other possibilities could be more targeted competence development - e.g. courses in asser-

tive communication or in the form of concrete sparring from PPR, which two different schools

have been successful with. Higher prioritisation of counselling teachers - e.g. expressed by not

replacing them each year - could be a completely free way to competency lifting alone through

the process of experience.

Conditions, which PPR employees find schools have very different criteria for when they recom-

mend the children for PPR, and that they use very different numbers of hours for supportive

teaching, point out that there could be reason to implement a more comprehensive clarification

of what is expected of the individual teacher, the school, the social administration and the PPR.

Many teachers are in doubt as to what their task is when it borders social efforts, and for this,

they should have guidelines and support to clarify.

But first of all, it could be beneficial to take a basic pedagogical discussion about the reason be-

hind the fact that half the teachers in the questionnaire survey perceiving the behaviour of the

students as the school's biggest challenge. Not the resources or the competences or the support

functions. But simply, students who do not behave as they should.

Finally, it makes sense to return to the chapter on teaching. Effective Teaching Principles were

largely selected and introduced as a suggestion for a way to teach students who are difficult to

motivate or retain with traditional teaching, but these are only applied to a limited extent. This

link has not been mentioned in the interviews, but it can be retracted with advantage.


5 The Teachers

The evaluation shows that many leaders and teachers in the schools experience that they have a

good working environment at the school. However, lack of co-operation is also often mentioned

as a reason behind tasks not being solved as well as they could. At the same time, there is a rela-

tively high turnover of staff in many schools, both teachers and leaders, which may result in a

lack of continuity and also have a negative impact on the working relationships. However, the

evaluation shows that the challenges are also about how teachers are organised at the schools.

Both teachers and leaders point out that, for example, the level and group structures are chal-

lenging in relation to the way teachers teach and collaborate. Some also think that cooperation

simply is not prioritised highly enough. For example, many teachers find it difficult to establish in-

terdisciplinary teaching. Finally, relations between Greenlandic and Danish teachers - in the

schools where there are many Danish teachers employed - are often marked by a certain dis-

tance, or perhaps even conflicts.

5.1 Generally on Cooperation Leaders and teachers are generally satisfied with the overall collaborative environment at the

schools. For example, in the questionnaire survey among school leaders, 19 out of 43 school

leaders (44%) answer that they are satisfied with the overall collaborative environment, while 23

(53%) are mostly satisfied. One town school leader is mostly dissatisfied. No one answers that

they are completely dissatisfied.

Table 17

How satisfied are you with the overall collaborative environment at the school?



Satisfied 6 (32 %) 13 (54 %) 19 (44 %)

Mostly satisfied 12 (63 %) 11 (46 %) 23 (53 %)

Mostly dissatisfied 1 (5 %) 0 (0 %) 1 (2 %)

Dissatisfied 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 24 (100 %) 43 (100 %)


Report, section 1.10, table 87.

Asked if unifying collaboration exists at the school, 12 leaders (29%) say that this is the case, and

24 out of 42 school leaders (57%) think that it is to some extent. A total of 6 school leaders

(15%) consider that there is less or no such cooperation. The questionnaire survey among school

leaders shows that there is no significant difference between town and village school leaders, but

it is thoughtful that 4 village school leaders do not think there is any collaboration at their (small!)

school that makes it feel like a unit. The figures are shown in the table below.


Table 18

To what extent do you feel the collaboration at the school is unifying?



To a high degree 6 (32 %) 6 (26 %) 12 (29 %)

To some degree 12 (63 %) 12 (52 %) 24 (57 %)

To a small degree 1 (5 %) 1 (4 %) 2 (5 %)

None at all 0 (0 %) 4 (17 %) 4 (10 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 23 (100 %) 42 (100 %)


Table Report section 1.10, table 93.

The school leaders have also been asked to what extent they estimate that teachers draw on each

other's knowledge and resources. To this, 15 (35%) say that it happens to a great extent and 26

out of 43 leaders (60%) say that it happens to some degree, 1 school leader (2%) replies only to

a lesser extent, and 1 school leader (2%) answers that it is not the case at all. Overall, 95% of the

leaders therefore consider that teachers at the schools draw on each other's professional

knowledge and resources (Table Report section 1.10, table 9).

The teachers have also been asked to evaluate their cooperation, and here too, a largely positive

picture emerges. In the questionnaire survey, 88% of the teachers are either satisfied (45%) or

mostly satisfied (43%). 12% of the teachers are mostly dissatisfied (10%) or dissatisfied (2%).

Table 19

How satisfied are you with the cooperation between the teachers at the school?



Satisfied 43 % 54 % 45 %

Mostly satisfied 45 % 35 % 43 %

Mostly dissatisfied 9 % 11 % 10 %

Dissatisfied 3 % 0 % 2 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire survey for school teachers employed in the Greenlandic Pri-

mary school in the school year 2013/2014. Table Report section 2.18, table 84.

The figures show that there is only a slight difference in whether the teachers from town and vil-

lages schools are satisfied with the cooperation between the teachers at the schools. However,

the trend is that there is greater satisfaction to trace among village school teachers than among

town school teachers.

In the questionnaire, teachers have also been asked to write what they think is the school's three

biggest challenges, and here 29 teachers from town schools and 5 from village schools mention

collegial cooperation (Table Report, section 3.2, table 2). (It may be some of the 33 who have

stated themselves in the table above as dissatisfied or mostly dissatisfied).

The theme of collaboration has been dealt with in the interviews with the teachers. It can be diffi-

cult to say something negative when sitting in a group with other colleagues, and the overall pic-

ture that is also predominantly positive. But many mention, for example, that they think that they

have good cooperation with the others at their own level, but that the cooperation with the

other levels is difficult. The replacement of teachers and teachers with a lot of absence are also

mentioned as challenges for the cooperation. One principal says that there may be conflicts be-

tween old and new teachers, a conflict he characterises as being "between the old school and

Atuarfitsialak".


5.2 The Level Cooperation According to the 2003 Primary School Act, the school is divided into three levels, comprising a

level for the youngest students in grades 1, 2 and 3, a four-year intermediate level for students in

4th, 5th, 6th and 7th grade, and a level for the oldest students in 8th, 9th and 10th grade. The

teaching is organised at the individual levels in groups divided according to year groups or across

year groups in subject-related courses. In addition, the new regulation assumes that part of the

teaching will take place in interdisciplinary courses in different groups, which will be elaborated in

the next section (section 2.3).

The purpose of the levels is explained in the comments to the act:

"The new structure will ensure that students complete a school course divided into manageable

units with final evaluations after each level so as to continuously permit a targeted planning of

the teaching and the learning process of each student." (Quote from: Comments on the draft for

the Parlimentary Regulation No. x of x.xxx 2001 on the Primary school, EM 2001/35 s. 6.)

Based on the level division, many schools have chosen that the individual teacher more than be-

fore has most of his/her teaching time on one level in teamwork and therefore preferably cooper-

ates with the group of teachers on the same level. The teachers thus do not follow their classes

throughout the school course, but preferably stay on the levels.

This structure provides a very clear structure for what group of students and teachers, the individ-

ual teacher has to work with. It also enables close collaboration between teachers in the individ-

ual class and the individual level. For example, if all teachers teach in different classes on all levels,

the individual teacher would have to attend many different year group or level meetings. In addi-

tion, the connection to the level means that the teachers can be specialised in the students' de-

velopment at the different ages and in the didactics that relate to them.

However, several teachers find that the level-divided structure is not a practice that is flexible

enough, which means that they often have to teach in many or all subjects in the individual class

in-stead of in the subjects they are trained for or simply have good academic competences

within. E.g., at one school there is only music in the senior level and only woodwork at the junior

level, because there is only one teacher for each of these two subjects. The obvious advantage

there ought to be by dividing into the levels, namely more cooperation between the teachers, is

not there in practice anyway according to several teachers. A new teacher thinks that it is exactly

the cooperation which is the biggest challenge. She has been instructed to teach nine different

subjects and does not think she gets any help from the others.

It should be noted that the set division of the teachers, where they are linked to one level and the

students thus change teachers at the transition between the levels is not something that is a re-

sult of the level division in itself. As stated in the remarks to the Regulation Act, it is initially in-

tended merely as a substantive division of the schooling.

Three Levels – Three Islands

The interviews in connection with the school visits show that the level structure greatly influences

how teachers experience the cooperation at the school. Several talk about the school being expe-

rienced as three separate schools in one. One teacher from a town school says, e.g., that "the

three levels are like three islands". The teacher calls for better cooperation across the levels, be-

cause the work on the connecting thread through the students' school time and the work on

transitions between the levels in her eyes today are in the background. As the school has grown

in recent years, it means, according to the teacher, that teachers at the school today have signifi-

cantly less contact with each other. However, in some places it has the benefit that within each

level there is a good and close cooperation.

At another town school, the teachers say that the same has been the case at their school, but

that the level structure has soften, so teachers are not just at one level making cross-collaboration

more flexible. They have also introduced bridge building lessons for co-operation between 3rd

and 4th grade and between the 7th and 8th grade so that the teacher who passes on students


can transfer knowledge to the teacher who receives the students at the next level. This also ap-

plies between the special class and the ordinary classes, where teachers have to hold meetings

with each other when students move from a special class to an ordinary class and vice versa. As

expressed by a teacher:

Earlier there was a gap between the levels. Today we place the most emphasis on teaching the subjects we are good at. It was different before. Only being a teacher at one level is not necessarily the best. It gives perspective to switch between levels.

Also in another town school, the level structure has softened, so more teachers now teach at dif-

ferent levels than those they are associated with. This means that there are some who have more

lessons at levels other than what they are organisationally associated with. As the collaboration is

still structured according to the levels, it presents a challenge in the way that it can be difficult to

gather all teachers within a single level to team meetings.

Another perspective is the function the levels have as an organisational unit to which different

tasks and functions are delegated and which must be led by a level or departmental coordinator.

In a small town school, teachers point out the fact that department coordinators do not ade-

quately lift their task of making the necessary pedagogical and professional discussions. E.g., a

teacher expresses frustration that generally there is a too lazy and unambitious attitude towards a

professional meeting culture. E.g., the teacher points out that the agenda is often not written be-

fore the meetings, and that the supervisors do not prepare and structure the meetings properly.

In addition, he finds that the meetings that are in the afternoon often do not take place, because

the teachers have gone home. In other places, it is mentioned that the level meetings are fine if

there is a well-defined agenda and that it is not just the responsibility of the level coordinator to

assure this: "We should also be better at doing something ourselves. We need to talk more about

the subject areas. We do not use each other's resources well enough."

In a small village school, the challenges are somewhat different. The few teachers at the school

experience both the strengths and challenges associated with not having more colleagues to co-

operate with. E.g., the leader thinks that it is positive to be a small group making everyday life

function as a team: "We work well together. It's nice to be so few. We talk to each other about

everything. But you may also want to have some colleagues in a team to spare with. I miss collab-

oration where you exchange ideas about the academic content and it is difficult when there are

only a few teachers. "The teacher tells us that a solution is being prepared where the school will

be connected to the town school's intranet so that they can develop some form of cooperation

with the town school teachers through the dialogue forums.

In the questionnaire survey, the school leaders have been asked how they assess the cooperation

on the levels and the cooperation in the subject teams. Here, the cooperation in the level teams is

assessed significantly better than that of the subject teams, which underlines the impression that

the levels can be excellent, well-functioning "islands" at the school, but at the expense of coop-

eration "across".

24 out of 43 school leaders (56%) respond that the level teamwork functions well, while 17 lead-

ers (40%) respond that it works reasonably. One village school leader (4%) says that it functions

to a lesser extent and one leader answers that at his school they do not have a level teamwork at

all. The figures are shown below in table 20.


Table 20

How does the level teamwork function?



Good 13 (68 %) 11 (46 %) 24 (56 %)

Reasonably 6 (32 %) 11 (46 %) 17 (40 %)

Less good 0 (0 %) 1 (4 %) 1 (2 %)

We don’t have it 0 (0 %) 1 (4 %) 1 (2 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 24 (100 %) 43 (100 %)



The school leaders, on the other hand, consider cooperation within the subject teams (Green-

landic language teachers, math teachers, etc.) considerably less. 14 out of 42 school leaders

(33%) respond that it works well. 19 (45%) respond that it works reasonably and 9 (21%) of

school leaders respond that it works less well. No one says there is no cooperation at all within

the subject teams among the teachers. The figures are shown in the table below.

Table 21

How does the cooperation within the subject teams function?



Good 3 (16 %) 11 (48 %) 14 (33 %)

Reasonably 9 (47 %) 10 (43 %) 19 (45 %)

Less good 7 (37 %) 2 (9 %) 9 (21 %)

We don’t have it 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %) 0 (0 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 23 (100 %) 42 (100 %)

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school, 2014.


Where village school leaders assessed the level teamwork somewhat less positively than the town

school leaders, it is the opposite with the subject teamwork. Here, there is a significant differ-

ence, with 48% of village school leaders - only 16% of town school leaders - thinking that the

subject teamwork functions well and 37% of town school leaders in contrast believe, it is less

good. It accounts for only 9% of the village school leaders. It may just be an expression of the

fact that the division of levels at the town schools is so pronounced that it actually interferes with

the subject teamwork, while the village schools are not so divided into levels of the mere practical

reason that all teachers have to teach more or less all grade classes.

The teachers also indicate that they meet more often with their colleagues on the level to which

they are attached than they meet with teachers teaching the same subject at the school in a sub-

ject team. According to the questionnaire survey, 85% of the town school teachers and 70% of

the village school teachers meet at least once a month in connection with the level teamwork

(Table Report, section 2.18, table 86), while the corresponding figures for subject teamwork are

39% and 47% respectively. (The rest meets less often or not at all) (Table Report, section 2.18,

table 88). Here, it is also apparent that the village school teachers to a greater extent than the

town school teachers prioritise the subject are collaboration. In addition, the town school teach-

ers participate more often in year group collaboration (72% at least once a month) than village

school teachers do (57%) (Table Report, section 2.18, table 86). An explanation that the level co-

operation is prioritised or assessed higher than the subject area cooperation may also be due to

the fact that at all schools, resources have been allocated for level cooperation through the pre-

paratory factor, while many schools have not allocated anything - or only little - for the subject

area collaboration.


5.3 The Cooperation between Greenlandic and Danish Teachers

The cooperation between Danish and Greenlandic teachers was not a topic in the evaluation, so

it is not something we have asked for in the questionnaires or interviews. The theme has sponta-

neously appeared in some of the interviews in the towns where there are more Danish teachers,

and as it obviously takes up a lot of energy, we mention it here.

Cooperation at schools is also influenced by the teachers' linguistic and cultural background,

where Danish teachers constitute a minority group on some of the Greenlandic educational es-

tablishments, although they are significantly fewer than they used to be, and today only make up

13% of the total, educational staff at the schools. However, it is very unevenly distributed, so at

the town schools in the major towns on the west coast there are typically only some Danish

teachers, while there are more in the town schools in the outer districts. However, some of the

interviews indicate that it is not the absolute number that is crucial. Even with a small group,

there may be friction in relation to the Greenlandic teachers. For example, it is illustrated by a

Greenlandic teacher's statement at a school where there are not so many: "At the senior level, it

functions well, we do not have any Danish teachers (...).”

One aspect is that you naturally seek colleagues you share a language with. Despite the fact that

most Greenlandic teachers are good at Danish, the small talk in the teachers' room is easier in

one's own language, and it easily gives a division of the two groups in everyday life. However, it

is hardly a problem for the cooperation in itself. But in addition to language barriers, some of the

interviewees believe that the Danish teachers often do not have enough knowledge about the

relationships and the academic and regulatory structures they have to deal with when working in

Greenland, or an acknowledgment of the fact that they are working in a foreign culture.

That the relationship between Danes and Greenlanders can be difficult can have the characteristic

of a taboo. This is already reflected in the fact that the topic has been solely addressed in the in-

dividual interviews conducted during the evaluation or in group interviews where only Green-

landic teachers have been present. Obviously, it is not an issue that is so easy to discuss openly in

the teachers' room across the two groups.

At one of the town schools, the school leader has bad experiences with the Danish teachers and

is quite critical of the group of Danish teachers in Greenland. The school leader, who is Danish

himself, finds that some of the Danish teachers in Greenland prefer to experience the country

and nature. In his view, it may sometimes be a wrong starting point for completing the job as a

teacher in Greenland: "Some are here to experience Greenland and not to deliver a piece of

work. And they have not understood that they are 'foreign workers'."

Part of the problem is, of course, the language barriers where communication between Danish

and Greenlandic teachers almost without exception takes place in Danish, as most Greenlandic

teachers speak and understand Danish, and almost no Danish teachers speak Greenlandic. It

brings Danish teachers into a strength position because they are linguistically in a better position

even though they are culturally and geographically away from home. Communication takes place

on Danish terms, and the language can affect the power relationship, because the Greenlandic-

speaking teachers must speak their second language with the Danes.

One school leader explains in line with this that especially the Greenlandic teachers are reluctant

to give opposition when the Danish teachers come up with a professional proposal. In the eyes of

the leader, Greenlandic teachers are inclined to say yes instead of oppose, which he is annoyed

by: "When I or the Danish teachers suggest something, they just say yes." However, it is the lead-

er's experience that the problem has become less over time as the teacher group has begun to

take co-responsibility and express their opinions.

A Danish teacher at a small town school explains that there may be cultural misunderstandings

and barriers: "I feel that there is an 'you and us attitude'. One is not as direct and I think it's hard

to know what my Greenlandic colleagues think. "The same teacher also explains that she is expe-

riencing that the Greenlandic teachers at the school have prejudices about the Danes, which in


her eyes is a reason behind the fact that friction may arise in the cooperation between Green-

landers and Danes.

At one of the town schools visited, there is a particularly difficult collaboration between Danish

and Greenlandic teachers. Here, both teachers and the school leaders talk about a "strict" coop-

eration climate, even with many quarrels. There is no culture of cooperation and helping each

other. The interviews indicate that a significant part of the problem is about the relationship be-

tween Greenlanders and Danes. Some of the Greenlandic teachers experience that Danish teach-

ers often have a know-all attitude, where they come with a "that's how we do it in Denmark"

approach to the work. They think that it often covers the fact that Danish teachers do not have

very much knowledge about the conditions in Greenland, and that the Greenlandic school is dif-

ferent from the Danish when they arrive. An interview with a new Danish teacher at the school

confirms this.

A Danish teacher in another small town has similarly a sense that he has had many predecessors

with "good ideas" and he understands that the Greenlandic colleagues are getting tired of it. At

the same time it is also difficult to hold back when you just happen to have those ideas, he ex-

plains.

At another school, the leader has openly addressed similar conflicts and there has been worked

on the issue at the school. The leader does not think it plays a big part anymore, although in

practice the teacher group is often divided into two groups in the teachers' room. The school

leaders emphasises that there have also been cooperation problems between teachers and uned-

ucated teachers. His approach has been to talk openly about it at the school and to work with

various concrete conflict management tools, and it has apparently improved the conditions.

5.4 Replacement and Absence among the Teaching Staff The parents in the interviews say it is a problem that there is a lot of replacement among the

teachers, and that many lessons are cancelled due to the absence of the teachers. In some

schools, it is also an area of action to reduce sickness absence among teachers. According to the

school leaders' response to the questionnaire, 32% of the leaders believe that the replacement of

teachers affects the students' learning outcomes negatively (Table Report, section 1.9, table 63).

In addition, over half of the leaders respond that at least 3% of the scheduled lessons were can-

celled in the school year 2013/14 (Table Report, section 1.6, table 44). 3% of the lessons corre-

spond to six full school days for each student. In three schools, it was more than 11%, corre-

sponding to 22 school days for the individual student.

Replacement of Teachers

Frequent teacher replacement is a problem for students who need to get to know new teachers

and new forms of work, just like any new teacher needs time to get to know the students and

their prerequisites and challenges. A teacher in a small town points out that the students have

had many different teachers with the effect that they have not "learned to work in peace and

quiet". It is also a problem for the school, in general, for the cooperation between the teachers.

A leader expresses it in the way that you have "to repeat yourself every year".

The problem is particularly severe in the outer districts where many travel away from, and to

where it can be difficult to attract new, competent teachers.

As mentioned earlier (section 6.2), the replacement of teachers is something the parents point to

as being problematic.

The questionnaire survey among school leaders shows that 9% of the leaders (two town schools

and two village schools) strongly believe that the replacement in their school is so high that "it

affects the students' learning outcomes negatively in general." 23% believe it is the case to some

extent, and 14% respond "to a lesser extent". 55% do not think it is an issue. (Table Reports,

section 1.9, table 63). Distributed by regions it looks like this:


Table 22

Do you think there are so many replacements of teachers at your school that it affects

the students' learning outcomes negatively in general?

SOUTH

NUUK

CENTRAL

DISCO BAY

NORTH

EAST

Total

Yes, to a high extent/

Yes to some extent

3

1

1

2

3

4

14

Yes, to a less extent/

No

5

7

4

8

4

2

30

Total 8 8 5

10 7 6 44



The figures are quite small, but there are, however, a tendency of replacement being perceived

more negatively in schools in the South, North and East Greenland, i.e. in the outer districts.

If you ask the teachers, 64% say that they have been employed at a school other than their pre-

sent after they graduated (Table Report, section 2.16, table 74). Here, there is a significant differ-

ence between educated and non-educated teachers, as it applies to 70% of the educated teach-

ers and 37% of non-educated teachers (Table Report, section 3.1, table 21). Distinguishing be-

tween teachers with Danish and Greenlandic teacher training, 97% of teachers with Danish

teacher training have been at another school before (it cannot be seen whether this was a school

in Denmark or Greenland) and the same applies to 66% of those educated in Greenland (Table

Report, section 3.1, table 22).

The teachers who have not always been at the same school have been asked why they changed.

Here the largest group - 51% - answer that they "wanted to try something new". 29% would

like to go "to this exact town/village" and 26% "moved to another town/village for personal rea-

sons". (Up to three answers could be given, so one teacher may have picked more than one of

these reasons). Teachers also had the opportunity to state reasons that something was happen-

ing at the school they moved from which they were dissatisfied with, but in any case, less than

10% of respondents chose this answer (Table Report, section 2.16, table 75).

To try and look a little into the future, the teachers have also been asked if they expect to be at

the school where they are employed now in three years. 59% answer yes to this, 14% answer

no, and 28% answer "Do not know" (Table Report section 2.16, table 76). Again, there is a sta-

tistically significant difference between Greenlandic-trained and Danish-trained teachers, with

66% of Greenlandic graduates expecting to be in the same school, while only 28% of teachers

educated in Denmark expect the same (Table Reports, section 3.1, table 23).

Cancelled Lessons

Teachers’ absence and cancelled lessons are very important in the parents' view of the school.

The extent of the problem is indicated in the questionnaire survey among the school leaders,

where 17 (55%) of the leaders indicate that 3% or more of the scheduled lessons were not com-

pleted in 2013/14. In three schools, the figure is over 11%. It is shown in the table below:


Table 23

How many of the scheduled lessons in the 2013/2014 school year were not completed?

Town School (N= 16)


0-2 % 6

(38 %)

8

(53 %)

14

(45 %)

3-5 % 7

(44 %)

3

(20 %)

10

(32 %)

6-8 % 2

(13 %)

0

(0 %)

2

(6 %)

9-11 % 0

(0 %)

2

(13 %)

2

(6 %)

Over 11 % 1

(6 %)

2

(13 %)

3

(10 %)

Total 16

(100 %)

15

(100 %)

31

(100 %)




many scheduled lessons were not completed during the school year 2013/14?" And "How many lessons were

scheduled for the school year 2013/14 in total?" with each other.

The table shows that 14 (45%) of the schools had to cancel 2% or less of the scheduled lessons -

6 town schools and 8 village schools. At 10 of the schools, 3-5% of the lessons were cancelled.

This corresponds to six to ten school days for the individual student. In 7 schools, the figure was

even higher. Please note that the question has only been answered by 31 of the 45 leaders who

otherwise answered the questionnaire.

In the town schools, the most dominant reason for the cancellations was, "We do not have

enough substitute teachers". This corresponds to 85% (11) of the town school leaders, but only

26% (5) of village school leaders. In the villages, bad weather is the most dominant reason - indi-

cated by 63% (12) of the village school leaders, but only 8% (1) of the town school leaders. One

leader in each group has specified "Teachers stay away without notice" as the main reason for

cancellations (Table Report, section 1.6, table 45). However, "lack of substitute teachers" may

have both illness and other absence as the root cause. The school leaders have not been asked

how they relate to these figures, as well as they were not asked questions on the use of flexible

planning.

The parents are naturally critical of the cancelled lessons. A parent from a big town school says:

At the intermediate level, we have experienced a massive replacement. (...) They have had so many free lessons and so many lessons with substitute teachers, it is out of this world.(...) The children's frames are non-existing. There is so much illegal absence among the students. There is so much illegal absence among the teachers. There are so many free lessons. You cannot get the regulation to work because no one is taking it seriously.

Several school leaders are fully aware of the problem and say in the interviews that they have

teachers employed, whom they do not believe deliver a qualified effort and whom they would

therefore like to dismiss. But it can be difficult either because the teachers are protected in the

employment or because it is difficult to find other teachers instead. The latter is a problem in

some towns, again typically the outer districts. One leader says:

If a teacher cannot meet the requirements, it is very difficult to fire them. Even though they get a warning from HR and all that. (...) A craftsman who does not do a proper job, you can fire immediately and find another. It's such a shame for the sake of the children ... We spend so much time on it. Such teachers, whom we try to assist, but where it just can-not be done and who will not quit on their own. That's my biggest problem! Including those who just work here for the sake of wages. They are not interested in the learning


objectives. They cannot perform classroom management, they cannot control the troubled children, they have no energy, e.g., to teach differentiated. They just think everything is so hard ... There are so many other talented out there who really want to teach! If we could get them, we would not need so many temporary engaged substitute teachers all the time.

Another leader is wondering that it is an issue at all that some teachers do not take care of their

job:

It is otherwise very reasonable as they are employed by the parents; it is the parents who pay their salary to teach their children and to do it properly. Well, if you do not take care of your job then you have to find something else. There is no one who says to a doctor that "now you must remember to perform your operations"! I am very surprised at the at-titude some have - that they think the school is for them.

As a concrete attempt to reduce absenteeism, a school has established set procedures for "health

conversations": If a teacher has sick leave three times, he or she must have a health interview

with the school supervisor or deputy head, where they ask if it is due to work etc. According to

the leaders, the teachers are very happy about it. Those who have not been ill during a semester

are praised at the teachers' room. The scheme is still so new that it is too early to say something

about effects.

A teacher from a school with stable teachers - and good results - says:

Stability is very, very important. We hear very badly about other schools, people are sick, absenteeism and substitute teachers and all that - for many years we have had very stable teachers so the children have been safe, they know us. They know that something reason-able takes place every day. It also means a lot.

The leader at this school has been very clear and consistent in the management's expectations for

the teachers and has also dismissed some through time, even though it is not easy in a small

community. But it has paid off in the long run and created a lot of respect for the school.

5.5 Efforts for Better Collaboration Several schools work on developing principles or values to ensure a common basis for collabora-

tion. In the interviews with leaders and teachers, there are examples of how the work on values

has strengthened collaboration and the mental working environment at the schools. At one of

the visited schools that has been affected by a poor working environment and mental health

problems among some of the school's employees for a long time, the leader emphasises the

work on values and work with the atmosphere in the teachers' room as focal points that have

helped turn the development into the better at the school. Together with a focus on rewards,

motivation and positive efforts, according to the leader, it has contributed towards a minimisa-

tion of teacher absence. The teachers at the school also assess that the cooperation climate has

improved over the last two years. They say: "The fact that we have made our vision and our mis-

sion have set the stage for cooperation. It has been invaluable. The fact that we want to be an

even better school, it has been motivating. (...) We've designed them together. It is ours, the

teachers' - they are not imposed from above."

At another of the visited schools, both the management and the teachers also experience that

their focus on the mental health environment has paid off and contributes to ensuring good co-

operation at the school. Here the school leader emphasises that all teachers at the school have

completed IMAK's self-evaluation project and related to IMAK's "profession ideals" and that this

helps to ensure an academic and professional link between the school's values and the staff's

professionalism.


In addition, both teachers and management emphasise that the school's shop steward is an im-

portant part of the work on the mental healthcare environment. Management emphasises,

among other things, that the good collaboration between management and the shop steward is

important to ensure the well-being and retention of school teachers at the school.

At several of the schools visited, there are examples that a poor working environment has led to a

prioritisation of, e.g., (MUS) personal development talks and a focused effort from the teachers'

shop steward.

At one of the visited schools, the shop steward works actively with the mental work environment,

which the teachers see as a great strength for their well-being and job satisfaction. At the same

time, the school leader stresses that the collaboration with the shop steward is good and that

MUS is now prioritised higher than ever before. However, there is also an example of a teacher

who thinks that the local shop steward is "petty-minded" and makes the collaboration more dif-

ficult, for example by insisting on agendas for meetings. And when there finally is a meeting,

there is either embarrassing silence or someone holding formalities and blocking decisions, be-

cause the cases are not properly set on the agenda.

At another school, MUS and SU [ed. Collaboration Committee] work are highly prioritised.

Among other things in connection with the MUS, the school leader observes every teacher's

teaching prior to the individual MUS. According to the school leader, this leads to a good envi-

ronment of cooperation at the school, but at the same time he emphasises that there are still

conflicts and teachers who are not satisfied. This management has been trying to come to grips

with this by introducing a system saying that conflicts must be handled with the one you disagree

with within 24 hours - instead of going behind the backs of each other. And if you do not, you

must involve the management. Then the leader can go to that person. Otherwise you have to for-

get it. This will ensure that bad relationships and conflicts between teachers do not get so exten-

sive that they affect the overall climate of the school. It is the leader who has introduced it, but

the employees are very pleased with the arrangement.

Looking at the formal collaboration forums, Educational Council and the Collaboration Commit-

tee, the school leaders believe that the Pedagogical Council works the best. 12 out of 19 town

school leaders in the survey believe the Pedagogical Council works well and 7 believe it works

reasonably. Among the village school leaders who have educational councils, 11 out of 21 think

it functions well and 10 thinks it functions reasonably (Table Report section 1.10, table 91). There

is somewhat less satisfaction with the collaboration committee. 9 town school leaders think it

functions well, 8 think it works reasonably and 2 think it functions less good. Among the village

school leaders, 41% answer "Good" and 59% "Reasonably" (Table Report, section 1.10, table

92).

WPA

The leaders have also been asked to what extent they estimate that the WPA (workplace assess-

ment) "is being used to create improvements". 8 school leaders say that they do to a great ex-

tent, 16 answer "to some extent", 11 "to a lesser extent" and 3 "Not at all". The answers show

that WPA is used to a greater extent in town schools than in village schools - the total of 21%,

who answer "To a great extent", consists of 37% of leaders at town schools and 5% of leaders

at village schools. (Table Report, section 1.10, table 95).

Although the school leaders generally do not attach importance to the WPA, the teachers are

more positive. They have been asked about the significance they attach to WPA for the school's

collaboration and mental work environment, and even though 28% have answered that they do

not know what it is, it is not at the school or that they do not know, 48 % has answered that it

has a positive significance. 22% believe that it is irrelevant and 3% that it has a negative signifi-

cance (Table Report, section 2.18, Table 93).


5.6 The Teachers - Assessment Although both leaders and teachers in the questionnaires reply that the collaboration environ-

ment at their school is reasonably good, it is clear that absent or poor collaboration in many

schools is a barrier for development. Teachers often use lack of collaboration as an explanation of

things that do not function optimally - work with Effective Teaching Principles, transitions be-

tween levels, interdisciplinary teaching, etc.

In some cases there is a level coordinator on whom you can place the responsibility. However, as

some teachers themselves point out, everyone has co-responsibility for making the collaboration

work.

The sharp division into the three levels in the schools, where teachers only associate with one in

which they teach many different subjects, raises some problems. It may imply that teachers teach

subjects, they do not have their best skills within, and vice versa - that the fiery souls, especially in

the small subjects, cannot get enough lessons to honour the subjects they are best at. It also

means that the school is divided into "islands" that only work together to a lesser degree, and

not least that the students get two transitions more than necessary during their schooling. The

latter is not a problem in itself, but with the great replacement of teachers, it seems inappropriate

to introduce more new teachers than necessary. Given that the purpose of introducing the levels

has only been to break up the schooling as regards content in some more clear terms - with mile-

stones in the form of the level tests- schools should consider organising teachers differently

around the individual classes. Some schools have already entered this path, recognising that it

must be the highest priority that teachers teach the subjects they are good at - not that the

teachers are gathered in levels or that the individual class has few teachers in the individual

school year.

At the schools where Danish teachers form a group, i.e. with more than one or two, it can be a

challenge in relation to the collaboration. The Greenlandic teachers think that the Danish teach-

ers take up too much space and do not recognise that they are working in a school that is - and

must be - different from the Danish. A school leader explains that some of the Danish teachers

are more likely to come to the country to experience something than to provide a good piece of

educational work. As the proportion of Danish teachers has become significantly smaller than be-

fore, this is something that is now primarily seen in the town schools in the outer districts. Alt-

hough it is far from all schools that have this challenge, it is obviously something that should be

more openly addressed by the management. As it is today, it has the character of a taboo, and

thus there is hardly any development in it by itself.

Large teacher replacement and cancelled lessons due to teachers' absence are not something

teachers and leaders address a lot in the interviews, but the figures from the school leaders' ques-

tionnaire point to specific problems in these areas - problems that the parents are also very con-

cerned with. The teachers' reasons for moving are apparently not so much dissatisfaction with

what they move from, but more the desire to experience new places. It is difficult to point out

what the schools can do to counteract it, though attractive workplaces obviously are more likely

to contribute to holding on to their employees.

As far as the cancelled lessons are concerned, it seems obvious that all schools have to work pur-

posefully to reduce their absence. Focusing on it, e.g., through the development of a sickness ab-

sence policy, can in itself reduce the absence.16 If half of the country's students lose 3% of their

teaching time - or (far) more because of the absence of teachers (and thus do not include educa-

tion carried out by substitute teachers) - it would be obvious to try hard to reduce these figures

before you even begin to consider adding more resources or hours to the schools.

Some of the absence is, of course, planned when teachers, e.g., participate in courses, and here

the schools have the opportunity to use flexible planning and gather the teacher's lessons at an-

other time. It has not been investigated or discussed if this approach is used.

16 http://www.arbejdsmiljoviden.dk/Viden-om-arbejdsmiljoe/Sygefravaer/aarsager and http://www.arbejdsmiljoviden.dk/Vi-den-om-arbejdsmiljoe/Sygefravaer/Arbejdspladsens-kan-forebygge-sygefravaer

http://www.arbejdsmiljoviden.dk/Viden-om-arbejdsmiljoe/Sygefravaer/aarsager


The evaluation's coverage of the fact that there may be difficulties in the collaboration between

Greenlandic and Danish teachers in some places asks for attention in itself as something to ad-

dress. But it is also a symptom that they are not good at dealing with difficulties in the collabora-

tion altogether in the teachers' rooms.

Bad or lack of cooperation means poor resource utilisation. This means that you do not utilise op-

portunities to learn from and inspire each other as teachers that you do not make interdisciplinary

teaching, that the students meet requirements and expectations that are not adjusted to each

other and therefore make the students confused and more distressed. It also means a poorer

mental work environment with consequent greater absence and thus acts as self-reinforcing. The

leaders have to take the lead here, but the teachers themselves have a big responsibility contrib-

uting to that project.


6 The Parents

The parents are very visible in the school debate these years. Each time the school's challenges

and results are mentioned, the parents' responsibility is mentioned. It is widely accepted that the

parents do not take this responsibility and do not ensure that the children are rested and fed

when they attend school and that they have read their homework and have their school supplies

in order. Many even think that the school cannot improve until the parents begin to take more

responsibility. 65 of the 203 teachers, who have written comments in the questionnaire survey in

connection with the evaluation, point to parents or school-home collaboration as one of the

school's three biggest challenges (Table Report section 3.2, table 2).

This chapter deals with the cooperation between school and home as well as the role of parents

in the students' schooling. The chapter highlights both the perspective of the leaders, teachers

and parents on school-home cooperation and looks into the role of the school board.

Parliamentary Regulation No. 8 of 21 May 2002 on the Primary school, §28, states that the

parents "are responsible for ensuring that the child is in compliance with compulsory edu-

cation and (may) not put obstacles to it." §42 further states that it is the school board of

the individual school that establishes and approves the more general guidelines for the co-

operation between school and home.

In continuation of the school reform in 2003, Inerisaavik prepared a handbook for parents

in 2004 on the basis of the changes contained in the regulation. The Parent Handbook is

designed as a reference book where parents can read about the guidelines for different is-

sues related to the students' schooling - including school-home cooperation, parental

rights, what the codes of conduct may include, etc. Teachers, students and parents at each

school are encouraged in the parent handbook to jointly identify some rules / requirements

that all parties can vouch for: "The rules can be about how to be prepared for class, how

to behave, and what should happen if you break the rules. Such rules must be clear, con-

crete and realistic. "(P. 56). School-home cooperation is seen as a key element in ensuring

that the school has a well-functioning learning environment for all students. At the same

time, it is emphasised that the preparation of rules rests on some grounds that all parties

can vouch for. Specific involvement of students, teachers and parents equally is considered

crucial.

According to the Guide to the Home Rule Order No. 2 of 9 January 2009 on evaluation

and documentation in the Primary school, the contact between school and home must be

carried out through the following four elements: 1) holding of school-home meetings at

least twice a year with the participation of the student, 2) holding of parent meetings at

least once at the beginning of the school year, 3) written reports to the home about testi-

mony, information on the implementation of the teaching, supplementary remarks, profi-

ciency marks at least twice a year and 4) home visits on the parents' request or consent.

The assessment of the cooperation between school and home leaves much to be desired, accord-

ing to the interviews with leaders and teachers as well as the parents. The schools generally use

school-home meetings, parent meetings, written notices and (to a lesser extent) home visits, alt-

hough the frequency may vary. But it is striking the extent to which both teachers and parents


state that they do not think the cooperation functions optimally. This indicates that while the for-

mal structure for cooperation is in place, it is somewhat harder with the content. It is a general

theme that teachers see the parents as a major problem in connection with students’ schooling.

A head of administration even believes that the parents are the school's biggest problem. There is

also an interesting and clear difference between towns and villages, as school-home cooperation

is considered more favourably in village schools than in town schools.

6.1 The School’s Assessment of the Parents’ Commitment Teachers indicate that they experience some major challenges in their teaching because the par-

ents do not take their share of responsibility for the children's schooling. Partly, the teachers find

that many parents do not assume their parent responsibility when it comes to ensuring that their

children are school ready and motivated. Partly, the parents do not attend the life at the school to

a particularly high extent by attending meetings and helping the children with homework etc.,

according to the teachers. Teachers also find that some parents distinctly dissociate themselves

from the school or lack respect for the teachers. The school leaders are also aware of the lack of

parental support. One leader explains:

Parents' support is generally a problem, especially here in the town. There is a lot of unem-ployment; we feel that a lot at the school. Many children are unmotivated; the school is just like a playground for them. They do not see any purpose of the teaching. We think it's a huge problem. There are too many with no interests at all and who do not know what they want.

Several interviewed leaders and teachers point out that there is a large group of parents who are

responsive and open to cooperation, but simply lacking what a teacher calls parenting skills. A

teacher says:” More than half of the parents have trouble ensuring their children arrive on time,

etc., very basic things.”

To provide clear frames for the children's bedtime, compliance with meeting times, that the chil-

dren have eaten breakfast at home before going to school, and that the children bring what they

need in class, are mentioned by teachers as frequently occurring shortcomings by the parents.

According to the teachers, it is a part of the children's upbringing, which the parents should take

care of, but that many parents do not take responsibility for.

6.1.1 Commitment in the School

In the questionnaire survey, the school leaders have been asked about their assessment of the

parents' commitment to the schooling of their children.

Table 24

How many parents would you say are committed to their children's schooling?



More than 75 % 3 (16 %) 17 (65 %) 20 (44 %)

50-75 % 11 (58 %) 8 (31 %) 19 (42 %)

25-50 % 4 (21 %) 1 (4 %) 5 (11 %)

Less than 25 % 1 (5 %) 0 (0 %) 1 (2 %)

Total 19 (100 %) 26 (100 %) 45 (100 %)



The table shows that in town schools 16% of the leaders (equivalent to three school leaders) be-

lieve that more than 75% of parents are involved in the schooling of their children. Most town

school leaders - 58% or a total of 11 - believe that between half and three quarters of the par-

ents are involved, while 26% (a total of 5) think that it is below half. The figures look somewhat

different in the village schools, where the majority of leaders - 65% or 17 - believe that over

three quarters of the parents are involved, and 31% (a total of 8) think that it is at least half. Only


one village school leader experiences that less than half of the parents are involved in their chil-

dren's schooling.

If you ask the teachers the same question, the difference between town and village is less, but

teachers see fewer committed parents than the leaders:

Table 25

How many parents would you say are committed to their children's schooling?



Above 75 % 16 % 34 % 19 %

50-75 % 30 % 28 % 30 %

25-50 % 33 % 17 % 30 %

Less than 25 % 21 % 21 % 21 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire survey for teachers who worked in the Greenlandic Primary

school in the school year 2013/2014. Table Report section. 2.19, table 106.

It is apparent from the table that only 19% of teachers believe that more than 75% of the par-

ents are engaged in the schooling of their children. However, it looks better at village schools,

where 34% of teachers believe that most parents are engaged, while it only applies to 16% of

town school teachers. At the other end of the spectrum, 21% of the teachers believe that less

than every fourth parent is committed. And here there is no difference between town and village

schools.

The teachers have also been asked how many parents attend parent meetings, and 30% say that

more than 75% do, while 13% think that it is less than 25%. The teachers must, therefore, as-

sess that some parents attend parent meetings without being committed in the schooling of their

children, as the figures for the parents' meetings are slightly higher. On the other hand, there are

very marked differences between town and village, as only 23% of town school teachers believe

that more than 75% of the parents attend parents' meetings, while the answer is 61% among

village school teachers. And no village school teachers believe that there are less than 25%, while

16% of town school teachers experience that (Table Report, section 2.19, table 104). A common

and realistic expectation could be that all teachers experienced that at least 75% of the parents

attended parent meetings, and in this light these are very low figures.

It is interesting to look at whether parents are more likely to attend school-home meetings, i.e.

where they meet individually with one or more teachers to specifically talk about their own child.

A presumption is confirmed here that the parents are more interested in this type of meeting,

with 51% of teachers expressing that more than 75% of the parents attend these meetings.

Again, there is a big difference between town (46% of the teachers) and village (77% of the

teachers). 24% of town school teachers find that less than half of the parents attend school-

home meetings, while the corresponding figure for village school teachers is only 6%. (Table Re-

port section 1.8, table 105). Although teachers believe that more parents come to these meetings

than to the general parents' meetings, it is all the more striking that not all teachers can expect to

see at least three quarters of the parents for meetings about their own children's schooling.

We have again looked at whether there is a difference between the Greenlandic-educated and

the Danish-educated teachers' answers, and there is no clear difference when it comes to parent

meetings (Table Report, section 3.1, table 15), but there is statistically significant difference when

it comes to school-home meetings. Here, 55% of Greenlandic-educated teachers find that more

than 75% of the parents attend, but only 28% of the Danish-educated have answered that.

Where 19% of Greenlandic-educated teachers believe that less than half of the parents attend, it

applies to 28% of the Danish-educated (Table Report section 3.1, table 16). This could indicate

that it is a barrier for some parents if the teacher is Danish-speaking.


In the interviews with leaders and teachers, this picture is generally confirmed and elaborated.

The interviewed leaders and teachers in the village schools are thus more positive when they de-

scribe the parents' commitment to the schooling of their children and participation in parent

meetings.

A village school teacher says about the parent meetings: "All parents come to the meetings. It is

a tradition. They respect the school." Another says: "I think the parent collaboration is good. The

parents attend the parent meetings. Most people are good at it. They are interested. "A leader at

a third village school elaborates: ”The parents are very easy to work with. If we have a problem

with a student, we can always contact them. They do what we ask of them. They also always

come to parent meetings – all of them. But then again, they are not so many."

When it comes to town schools, there are different challenges. A town school teacher says:

"There are some good [parents] who support and some you cannot reach. It's also about the par-

ents' relationship with the school, the way they view the primary school."

Another teacher says correspondingly:

We try all sorts of things. We try to make the meetings a bit more interesting, for example, by making a presentation on a screen. We make coffee or communal meals. We try to call them. But at the parent meeting for the 7th-9th grade, for instance, only a total of seven and eight parents turned up. I find, however, that younger parents are different, i.e. those who have small children now. They will do things differently than their parents did and support their children more.

6.1.2 The Teachers’ and Leaders’ Explanations of the Challenges

The parents' lack of involvement in the school can partly have general societal explanations,

partly more individual reasons.

The big difference between towns and villages can be explained directly by the fact that everyone

in the villages knows each other, so it is simply easier to establish a relationship between the

school and the parents, because teachers and parents also know each other from other (social)

contexts and meet regularly in everyday life. In that sense, the collaboration seems to be more

mutually binding for both parties. But there are also village schools that have had experience of

poor attendance and who have made an active effort by actually bringing parents to parent

meetings until it was taken for granted that you attend.

More generally, both leaders and teachers in the interviews point out that there are some overall

structural societal challenges that affect school-home collaboration. In many places, the school is

described as "a mirror of the town", understood in the sense that the problems that characterise

a town are also expressed in the school. Increasing poverty, unemployment and alcohol, abuse

and gambling addiction are things that are mentioned in several places as conditions that affect

the parents' ability and energy to participate in the school's life. One leader says: "The parents

have become poorer in recent years. The children lack food, there is unemployment and falling

fur prices. More people get alcohol problems." A teacher says: "Some parents are very shy and I

understand that. They do not feel good about themselves. Then it is also difficult with larger as-

semblies. And then there's bingo just that day..."

One leader has parents at the school who do not show up for several years. Of course, she re-

gards these as cases for the social services.

While a leader explains elsewhere:

The town has stalled within the new large municipality. Workplaces have disappeared and unemployment is a major problem. It also contributes towards making the students unmo-tivated - because they cannot see a clear goal of the education when there are no jobs to get. It also weakens attendance discipline.


The major societal problems are naturally difficult for the school to rectify. Nevertheless, these cir-

cumstances are important in explaining why many parents fail their parent responsibility in rela-

tion to the school. Not least, because it also affects the children's motivation for learning. As a

village school leader says: "The students are unwilling to learn! It is a challenge. We have to work

more with the parents. Many leave the entire responsibility to us. "A town school teacher also

mentions that the parents do not adequately take responsibility:” The parents let go of the young

people too early. There has to be a behavioural adjustment. The parents need to get better at

supporting their children to have a good schooling.”

Finally, the school itself can be part of the problem. A teacher says, "I think that the primary

school has a very negative reputation in most societal circles." The school is simply not a place

you associate with something good.

Now of course, there are many parents who are committed to their children's schooling, who at-

tend parent meetings and support their children. So some more individual explanations are also

necessary in order to understand the problem.

A town school teacher talks about a form of alienation of the school: "Many parents cannot help

with homework, and they even have bad school experiences themselves."

Some schools experience problems with the parents who feel "persecuted" by the school, be-

cause the school has a policy of, e.g., informing parents about student absenteeism or, in gen-

eral, contacting parents quickly when there are minor problems based on the idea that they

should not be allowed to grow big. A teacher explains: "The parents who come to meetings un-

derstand what the task is. Those who do not come see the teacher as a police. "A leader explains

this as follows:

The parents complain that they are being contacted all the time. But teachers have to. The parents feel persecuted because they are not used to being contacted. They think the school is only after them.

In order to prevent parents from feeling persecuted by the school, many teachers consider it im-

portant to contact parents when the students do well in one way or another at the school as well

- even if, for example, they are only small learning milestones. It is about avoiding the parents

feeling insufficient or disqualified by the school.

6.1.3 The Parents and Atuarfitsialak

Another issue that is touched upon by several teachers in the evaluation is that the school is new

and different for the parents. It is not clear to them what Atuarfitsialak is about and what expec-

tations of the parents that are implied in the completion of the Good School. A teacher explains:

Atuarfitsialak must be explained better to the parents. We try to do it ourselves when the school starts in August, but it would be nice with a booklet about it. The parents must un-derstand that it is not just about the students being skilled.

Another teacher elaborates on this and also points to the need for supportive materials on Atu-

arfitsialak and the expectations of the parents' role:

Many parents still do not know what Atuarfitsialak is - it has to be explained again! There could well be some more information from Inerisaavik to parents about their role. As a parent, I too often feel that other parents do not know their role.

A perspective one leader also touches upon:

The parents feel disempowered and alienated from the school after year 2003. It is a dif-ferent school than they are accustomed to. Despite brochures and booklets. They become cautious, nervous. The school has become dangerous to them - and it all takes place with fancy words, action plans, etc.


According to the teachers, it could therefore be encouraging for the collaboration if the content

of and the objective of the school reform became clearer for the parents, so that they gained in-

sight into and understanding of their own role in supporting the children's schooling.

Conversely, there are actually (resourceful) parents who embrace Atuarfitsialak and turn the issue

completely:

I do not believe there is anything wrong with Atuarfitsialak as such, but many of the teach-ers do not really follow it. For example, it is suggested that the students are divided into groups, for example, whether they find it easy or difficult, amongst others in order to help each other and get the help they need of the teacher. The teachers say they do this when I have asked them, but I talk to my children about it and they say it is not true.

Another says in short that it "is not the regulation there is something wrong with, but the use of

it”.

The different perspectives illustrate clearly that parents are very different, and that they naturally

also experience the school very differently.

6.1.4 The Teachers’ Own Role

From the teacher interviews, it is clear that many teachers consider it very demotivating to ar-

range parent meetings where only a few of the parents attend. At the same time, however, it is

quite different to what extent the teachers themselves have reflected on the importance of the

content of the parent meetings on the number of attendants. Thus, some teachers tend to blame

only the parents for the modest attendance. However, some of the teachers are very aware that

successful collaboration with the parents requires that, from the side of the school, they try to

work more with what they present to the parents at the meetings. As a teacher says: "We should

not be negative with the parents. We should also call them about positive things, just like they've

started other places."

Another teacher at a small town school at the same time points to the teachers' own responsibil-

ity to accommodate the parents:

I think that we can make the school more interesting if we want to work on a school that is wel-coming to parents, citizens and students. It is our responsibility to find out how we should work together to make it attractive. We are the educated - not the parents. Parents may need help in understanding things. Therefore, we cannot just look down at them if they have problems. And the same goes with the children. And where is the responsibility for their learning? It lies with us.

Sayings like this testify that, from some teachers, attention is also drawn to the importance of

meeting the parents with a positive and constructive perspective if the parents' commitment is to

increase.

6.2 The Parents’ Perspective In connection with the evaluation, five interviews have been conducted with parents. In one of

the towns, it was two members of the school board, in the other towns, the parents had received

an open invitation to attend. Only a few parents showed up and they belong to the group of

committed parents who also attend parent meetings, etc. - otherwise they would not have come

to this interview. But they would like to reflect on why so many parents do not take this part of

parental responsibility on themselves. The interesting thing is that these parents have quite differ-

ent explanations than the teachers as to why there are so few that attend parent meetings and

engage in school-home collaboration in general. Everyone can probably agree that problems with

ensuring that the children receive the sleep and the food they need and the necessary security

and support are overall social problems, the parents see parent meetings in a completely different

light than the teachers. The parents point out that the problems of getting many parents to at-

tend parent meetings and school-home conversations have a lot to do with the content of the


meetings. Several of the parents interviewed in the survey point out that the content of the meet-

ings far from always has a character that encourages participation or an ability to engage the par-

ents. A parent explains:

The parent meetings are not interesting. The teachers show the students' books and say how far they have reached. They also present learning objectives, but we already know them. They just hurry through it, like, chop, chop, chop - looking at the clock and saying they have to stop now and hurry out the door. We do not ask any questions. Sometimes you feel that you are not heard.

Another parent describes the parent meetings like this:

There may be four to five parents of a total of 20 children [for parent meetings]. Maybe a little more if there is dining. But it is usually very general information we get - not some-thing that captures me as a parent.

A parent points out that attendance at parent meetings often depends on the character of the

content: Sometimes there are only three to four parents for a parent meeting. But it really depends on the topic. When three students were expelled, and they were going to inform about it - a lot of parents turned up! But why couldn't we have talked about the problems before it turned out that bad?

Several parents have specific ideas as to the content of the parent meetings. They would like to

learn more about how the class functions and how the children get along in the class. They also

want to know how to work with the objectives of the class. In this regard, a parent also points to

the parents' own role and says:

I'd rather know what I can do as a parent - whether there is a particular method that they use to learn arithmetic, the approach to spelling and the like. I would like to know my role as a parent.

Some parents have heard talks about tools for "the good parental collaboration" (from Inerisaa-

vik) which they would like to be applied in the parent-school collaboration. A mother explains

that her child's teachers once used a parent meeting to show the parents what the students

should learn and let the parents try the same. For fun, the parents also got homework and diplo-

mas. The purpose of this was that the parents should learn something some of the methods they

could also use to help the children with their homework. The event was endorsed greatly by the

parents.

It is also a general experience among the parents that the collaboration works best when teach-

ers work together on the classes. Then the parents experience better information about the stu-

dents' well-being and the students' learning.

Some parents are also critical of school-home conversations, called Angusakka meetings:

There have been many situations in which you leave an Angusakka meeting thinking that "there was a challenge mentioned in that Angusakka description, but yet [the teachers] only mention those positive things and" it is good enough, "and then you get the impres-sion that they maybe didn't even read what it said ... And then oddly enough when these Angusakka meetings are organised, there are always some of the teachers who are ill. Al-ways! It must also be stated how many lessons have been taught and how many lessons the students have been absent in, but it should also be mentioned how many hours of ab-sence the teacher has had.

However, the interviewed parents are completely aware that there are parents who are difficult

to collaborate with: "Many parents do not care, set no limits on the children and put all responsi-

bility on the teacher. They do not know how to support their children."


The fact that the school has changed since the parents themselves went to school is also some-

thing that is important for school-to-home collaboration - the parents see this, as well as the

teachers. One parent explains: "In 1973, when I started schooling, the parents just handed their

children to the school. Now, parents are expected to be involved." We have a responsibility."

Frequent Change of Teachers

Several parents mention a condition that teachers themselves do not come across - that frequent

change of teachers can be a barrier to successful school-home collaboration. The many changes

of teachers result in a lack of continuity in the school's announcements and efforts. And that

makes cooperation between school and home more fragile because it is often very dependent on

the individual person. A parent says: "We feel lucky if our children have a teacher for more than

a year - having a class teacher for more than two years is rare here.” Another says: "When the

teachers move or when a new school leader arrives, the collaboration must just start over again.”

At a school where there has been a lot of shift in the management post, the current leader says it

is something the parents pay close attention to. She compares it to a team of dogs and says: "If

the two leading dogs in the dog sled are replaced, the dogs become confused." It also has a

bearing on the collaboration.

Finally, the organisation in many schools, where teachers are linked to one of the levels, means

that the students change all their teachers in connection with the level transition. This gives even

more disruption for the students. Several parents note that the frequent teacher replacements

especially at the junior and intermediate levels are perceived as confusing and unfortunate - for

the parents and for the children themselves.17 It is exacerbated by the fact that, in the parents'

view, the teachers do not work together to exchange information and experience at the transi-

tion. In addition, several places have experienced major problems with teacher shortage, resulting

in the students getting many free periods or lessons with substitute teachers.

6.3 Suggestions for Solutions: a Specific and Positive Approach

In many places, leaders and teachers have made many considerations about how the parent col-

laboration can be strengthened, and it has also been expressed in specific actions.

Several interviewed teachers agree that a good starting point for a successful school-home collab-

oration is that the school is able to set a clear and specific structure for what it wants the collabo-

ration to consist of, and how the division of responsibilities between school and home should be.

It is apparent from the interviews with both leaders and teachers that most people consider it im-

portant that the school meets the parents with a positive attitude and not only contacts them

when there are problems or criticisms on the agenda. Many schools have begun working more

consciously with this in order to create a ground for a more constructive, on-going dialogue. A

teacher explains:

It is important to think about the attitude we have when we call the parents. For example, by not just scolding regarding an episode, but rather say "be on time next time". One can be accused of pursuing certain families.

Another teacher points out:

We have a positive approach to the parents and like to praise them for the good things they do. We try to focus on the students’ strengths. It should not be that children or par-ents are afraid of the school-home collaboration.

While a third teacher focuses on the positive development that has been initiated:

17 A PPR employee also has the experience that the level transitions mean that some teachers "keep up" with students with difficulty - and therefore do not deal with their problems because they know that they are going to pass them on shortly to the next level.


Previously there were only Angusakka meetings [school-home conversations]. Now we have prepared values together [with the parents]. We call the parents a lot, or write, but are also aware of doing it regarding positive things.

In order to increase the engagement and get something positive to gather around, some places

have chosen to spice up parental events with social initiatives such as communal eating and the

like.

Concrete Expectations on the Individual Parent

Some schools work to clarify the expectations of the parents and have good experience with it.

One leader explains:

The expectations of the parents are communicated by signing the child's action plan and by notifying them that they should read for their children and that we expect them to fol-low up on agreements. They will be called the same day if something has happened. We also expect that the child is ready to receive education. Some teachers also want a signed "bedtime contract".

The leader explains that persistence and continuity in this context also matter:

We encourage parents to spend 10 minutes each day with their children, where they look through the school bag and so forth. Such actions begin to work. Teachers do a lot for the individual parents who cannot handle it. Then they write to them or call and have good contact with them, have meetings with them individually - especially with students with special needs.

A central part of coordinating expectations is that you work with a clear division of roles between

school and home. Some also attach importance to involving the parents in the coordination of

expectations so it does not only go one way:

I started out at the first parent meeting with an introduction of a written "Notes of Expec-tations" about what we expect them to solve as parents. These and these things we ex-pect of your child - packed schoolbag, remember pencils, get to school on time. The par-ents were really happy to receive it because, as they said, they had never had it before. It's because if you do not know it, how can you then do it well? I find that the parents want to; they just do not know what to do. We also asked them how many hours they thought their children should sleep. They discussed it in groups, and when they came back they found out that it should be ten hours. Meanwhile, we found out how much scientists ex-pect a student of that age to sleep and that actually matched. The problem is just that there are some parents who have difficulty getting their children to sleep those ten hours. But then they have talked about it, and maybe that may happen gradually.

Another teacher at the same school also formulates values and expectations with the parents -

also to know the parents' expectations for their children and to the teachers. They are hanging

on the wall in class so the students can see them every day.

One school has introduced a parent game, a dialogue-creating tool, in the efforts of involving the

parents more in the work of the school and to develop mutual understanding. The use of the

parent game (at parent meetings, school board meetings and the like) is perceived by the school

as a good way to start the conversation between the school and the home smoothly. In the

longer term, the idea is to disseminate the output of this in a written, mutually binding docu-

ment, which is handed to both the school and the parents, and which is placed in a visible place

at the school. It can also be discussed and if necessary adjusted, for example, at parent events in

the following classes.

One school also plans to make a parent's school for the small group of parents who always come

to parent meetings. The purpose of this is not academic upgrading, but rather to create some


trendsetters among the parents who may be positive ambassadors for close school-home collabo-

ration.

6.3.2 Parents and Homework

There are different perceptions of what "support from the parents" implies. Some teachers per-

ceive parents' support and co-responsibility as a matter of parents giving positive attention to the

children and school, making sure that the children are prepared for learning and remind them of

doing their homework, etc.

In addition, some teachers expect the parents to help the children with their homework, and see

it as a challenge that the parents may find it difficult, because they are not academically capable

of it. To help these parents, some of the schools work with guidelines that teachers can provide

to the parents if they think it could help to support their children's learning. Other places have

plans to make parent training in their spare time - for example in the subjects of mathematics

and Danish, as to give parents the necessary skills to help their children in these subjects. Com-

mon to the schools, however, is that work on such measures is still only in their infancy and that

supporting materials on how to specifically engage and involve the parents are something that

the teachers demand. However, not all places see it as the parents' role to help the children in an

academic context.

6.4 Institute of Learning on the Role of the Parents During the interview with the Head of Institute of Learning (i.e. the teacher training and Inerisaa-

vik), the role and responsibilities of the parents were also discussed. Here, the relationship be-

tween school and parents was seen in a different way than at the schools. Around the table,

there was agreement that the vulnerable parents should not be used as a pretext for not taking

responsibility as a school:

Vice Head Kathrine Kjærgaard says:

It may be that the parents fail, but then as a school, we must do something else. I have put a lot of emphasis on this in my teaching here, but it is met with great resistance - the teacher students say, "It cannot be true, the parents should learn." But if the parents can-not, then we must. It is not the children's fault that the parents fail. I say: "Never mind the parents, we have to do something here that makes the children think it's important to come. It may be that they do not bring the school bag, but then you must have pencils at hand. Do not point your finger at the parents because it is something they cannot control. "But it's really hard because it's not in vogue.

In addition, she concludes strongly that it is a misunderstanding when teachers expect the par-

ents to help with, for example, mathematical homework that they cannot figure out themselves

which therefore requires them to receive courses in it: "It is not the parents who have to teach

the children!"

The parents are different - have very different resources and ways of parenting - and this must be

reflected in the teachers' expectations of them and their ways to address them, one head of In-

erisaavik thinks. The other indicates that more can be done about the way in which parent meet-

ings are held. She is not surprised that the parents express that they are not told anything of sub-

stance regarding the teaching at the parent meetings, because it is - she elaborates - difficult to

explain at a parent meeting if, for example, you have not prepared a curriculum for your teach-

ing. Thus, these things are connected and cannot be isolated from each other.

6.5 The Role of the School Board in the Parent Collaboration The school boards consist of five representatives of the parents, two representatives of the teach-

ers and two representatives of the students. According to the Primary School Act, it is the school

board who has to frame and approve the school's plan for the school-home collaboration.

Inatsisartut Act No.15 of December 3 2012 on the Primary school (§47, section 4) says:” The

school board determines guidelines for the school's other activities, including the school's and


home's consultation on the individual child's schooling and educational course and other collabo-

ration between school and home.” The role of the school board in general is illustrated in section

8.5. Let us look into the school board's own role in the school-home cooperation for a moment.

It turns out that some school boards do not simply "set guidelines" for this cooperation, but ac-

tively participate in it.

In some of the schools, the school board functions more like a form of ambassadors that help

strengthen cooperation between the school and the other parents. For example, the school board

organises social events for students, parents and teachers in the form of communal dining or ar-

ranging fundraising events in support of student campus stays and study trips or themed meet-

ings on bullying, discipline or the like.

In many places, school boards have called for large parent meetings, where the parents' responsi-

bility for children's education, in particular, has been on the agenda. In one of the small towns, it

was possible to get 75 parents to attend a grand meeting organised by the school board. Several

school boards are also concerned in topics such as health / prevention and absence.

6.6 Summary and Assessment – the Role of the Parents It is a continuous feature that teachers experience that the parents' involvement in the education

of their children is generally problematically small. 69 teachers in the questionnaire survey men-

tion it as one of the three biggest challenges of the school (Table Report section 3.2, table 2). The

parents' involvement in their children's education as such as well as the attendance at parent

meetings and school-home meetings are considered to be remarkably higher in village schools

than in town schools. Teachers see it as a manifestation of social and individual problems or an

inappropriate attitude towards the school by the parents, and think that they have done a lot to

make the parents show up at the school meetings. However, the interviewed parents point out

that the parent meetings they experience have an uninteresting content and lack dialogue and

engaging topics. For example, parents would like to know more about how teachers work to

achieve the academic goals, and how they can contribute, as well as the social life and well-being

of the class.

Some parents themselves have bad experiences from their own school time, which may result in

them having a strained relationship with the school as an institution. Other parents find that the

school through Atuarfitsialak has changed so much that they hardly know it and therefore be-

come uncertain of their own role as parents. This means that the school, as it appears today, can

have an alienating effect on them. These parents may feel "disqualified" because they perceive

the teachers as patronising and paternalistic. Some schools therefore also aim to communicate

with parents when there are positive things in the child's school development. In this way, it is

avoided that there are only negative things such as absence and learning difficulties that come

into focus in the contact between school and home. And it creates the basis for a more construc-

tive, on-going dialogue.

Other, resourceful parents, on the other hand, regard Atuarfitsialak as a good innovation, which

only fails because they do not experience that teachers actually implement the reform elements.

The interviews with the parents - and the teachers too for that matter - give the impression that

there is an absence of matching expectations between school, teachers and parents about

school-to-home collaboration. And here the school leaders and teachers as the professionals in

the relationship have the responsibility for this matching of expectations. The teachers really need

to know more about the parents' expectations for the content and form of the parent meetings

in order to arrange meetings that the parents think are worthwhile attending. And teachers must

convey their expectations to the parents so that the parents do not doubt what their role is. It is

perfectly understandable that teachers are frustrated by the lack of parental involvement, not just

in relation to parent meetings, etc., but with regard to the children's schooling in general. It is

just important that it is not seen as a basic condition or the parents' "fault", but that politicians,

leaders and teachers together assume responsibility for setting the school according to the pre-

sent conditions.


Some teachers are concerned with how parents can be provided the necessary knowledge to

help their children with homework. It is interesting that in this regard, it is not considered a prob-

lem whether the parents should be charged with this task at all. The head of the educational pro-

gramme at the teacher college clearly does not think they should. And considering that in many

families it is a problem giving the parents the responsibility of getting the children to bed, break-

fast and in school on time in the morning, it may not be the right place to place more responsibil-

ity on the parents. It is also an expectation that could increase the distance between the condi-

tions children from respectively resourceful and non-resourceful home have. It might very well be

stated in the Primary School Act that "The Primary School's task is in collaboration with the home

to help the student acquire all necessary knowledge and skills regardless of social background

(...)”.But the home's part of the cooperation does not have to consist of taking on the task of the

school - teaching. That you have a shared responsibility may consist in taking care of different

parts of it.

Only a few of the interviewed teachers and leaders mention the handbooks made by Inerisaavik

on parent collaboration (About Atuarfitsialak/Atuarfitsialak pillugu – Handbook for Parents) and

school board work (http://www.inerisaavik.gl/publikationer/haandboeger/). However, mate-

rials and tools for school-home cooperation are asked for very explicitly, which suggests that you

can point to the existence of the material with advantage and possibly relaunch them.18

The primary task of the school boards is to serve as boards for schools, but the experience of sev-

eral schools points out that the role as ambassador - which conveys both ways between parents

and school and between communities and schools - is obvious and could be an interesting and

beneficial role for the boards to have in the future.

18 This material from the Municipality of Copenhagen, by the way, addresses many of the issues mentioned here and may provide inspiration: http://ipaper.ipapercms.dk/KKBUF/HROrganisation/BrugFolkeskolen2013/.


7 The School Management

The evaluation shows that school leaders in both village and town schools are overall very satis-

fied with the general conditions of their managerial scope. Both the School Act and the coopera-

tion with the administration are generally considered positive by the leaders. Some school lead-

ers, however, find it difficult to find enough time to pursue pedagogical leadership because the

administrative tasks take a lot of time. This applies especially to the relatively new leaders, consti-

tuting about half of the total number of the school leaders. However, many teachers are quite

critical of their management, and the interviews show in several cases that leaders and teachers

see their common reality rather differently.

7.1 The Frame and Scope of the Management Viewed across questionnaires and interviews, leaders generally assess their structures and man-

agement scope positively. The scope is delimited partly by the Primary School Act, and partly by

the municipalities, which may choose to delegate more or less from the administration to the

school leaders.

In the questionnaire for the school leaders, they have been asked to what extent they perceive

that the educational goals and structures, which are expressed in the Primary School Act and un-

derlying executive orders, are understandable and manageable in everyday life.

Table 26

To what extent do you perceive that the educational goals and structures, which are ex-

pressed in the Primary School Act and underlying executive orders, are understandable

and manageable in everyday life?



To a high extent 14

(74 %)

10

(38 %)

24

(53 %)

To some extent 5

(26 %)

15

(58 %)

20

(44 %)

To a lesser extent 0

(0 %)

1

(4 %)

1

(2 %)

Not at all 0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

0

(0 %)

Total 19

(100 %)

26

(100 %)

45

(100 %)


Table Report section 1.1, table 5

14 (74%) of town school leaders and 10 (38%) of village school leaders believe that the educa-

tional goals and structures are highly understandable and manageable in everyday life. 5 (26%)

of town school leaders and 15 (58%) of village school leaders believe that this is the case to some

extent, while no town school leader and only one village school leader has answered "to a lesser

extent". Overall, the answers point to the fact that the school leaders largely believe that the reg-

ulations of the school act regarding educational goals and structures are understandable and use-

ful in everyday life. This picture fits well with the more elaborate responses from the leader inter-

views. Several leaders touch upon in the interviews that the structure of the act allows for a high

level of self-management, and it is largely minor things in the act that can be difficult to adapt


precisely to the individual school. The figures indicate a somewhat less satisfaction among the vil-

lage school leaders, and this is explained by a village school leader:

Sometimes the act does not fit well into a small school. But it is useful when appropriate. Something is difficult to understand because it is not so adapted to the village schools; it is mostly for larger schools.

However, the interviews generally support the image of the school leaders who think that the

school act provides an excellent structure for day-to-day work at the schools. In this context, one

leader points out that because the reform was so extensive, the leader missed a clear priority in

the implementation phase. This meant that the leader chose to make a priority list as a form of

guideline for use in the work on the many different content elements of the reform. Another

leader points out that it would be advisable to communicate the structure of the act and the on-

going municipal requirements directly to the teachers, for example through the school's 'intranet

/the teachers' Attat mail.

The Leader’s Possibilities for Self-Determination

The Primary School Act provides for a high level of decentralised governance, but it can be ac-

complished very differently, and the scope of the school leaders depends on what the municipali-

ties determine. Although town school leaders have more scope than village school leaders, a

much larger proportion of the latter are satisfied with their possibilities for self-determination.

In the questionnaire survey, the school leaders have been asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they

are with their possibilities for self-determination as a school leader.

Table 27

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your self-determination possibilities as a

leader?



Satisfied 7

(37 %)

19

(73 %)

26

(58 %)

Mostly satisfied 10

(53 %)

6

(23 %)

16

(36 %)

Mostly dissatisfied 1

(5 %)

1

(4 %)

2

(4 %)

Dissatisfied 1

(5 %)

0

(0 %)

1

(2 %)

Total 19

(100 %)

26

(100 %)

45

(100 %)



The table shows that 7 of the town school leaders and 19 of the village school leaders are satis-

fied with their self-determination possibilities, while 10 town school leaders and 6 village school

leaders respectively are predominantly satisfied. Overall, 17 (90%) of town school leaders and 25

(96%) of village school leaders are either satisfied or mostly satisfied with their possibilities for

self-determination as school leader. This picture fits well with the announcements that the lead-

ers bring in the qualitative interviews.

In the questionnaire survey, leaders who did not answer "Satisfied" on the overall question of

their self-determination possibilities have also been asked more specifically about which areas

they are dissatisfied with in relation to their self-determination. When the leaders are not com-

pletely satisfied, it may be both because they want more self-determination and vice versa where

they want more structures (guidelines). There is a very mixed picture here:

When it comes to staff management, four town school leaders want more guidelines, and no-

body wants more self-determination. The village school leaders are all pleased with the scope

here.


As regards educational management, the village school leaders are also satisfied, but among the

town school leaders, there is one who wants more self-determination and two who want more

structures.

In connection with the administrative management, four town school leaders and one village

school leader would like more self-determination, while two town school leaders would rather

have more fixed structures.

Seven leaders, four from town schools and three from village schools, would like more self-deter-

mination in economic management, while two town school leaders would rather have more

guidelines.

Finally, five leaders, four from town schools and one from a village school, would like more self-

determination in recruitment and redundancies, while four town school leaders would like more

structures (Table Report section 1.3, table 21-25).

Viewed across municipalities, the questionnaire survey also shows that there is no significant dif-

ference as to whether the leaders in the four municipalities are satisfied or dissatisfied with their

possibilities for self-determination (Table Report section 3.1, table 24).

The Teachers' Working Time Agreement as a Limitation on the Scope

The Primary School Act and the municipalities’ administration are not conceived as unnecessary

limitation in the daily life, but several leaders argue that the teachers’ working time agreement is.

For example, you cannot get the teachers to stay five minutes extra for a parent meeting if re-

quired or when a camp school has to be planned and manned. However, the question is whether

the leaders are aware of the options for adapting the agreement locally.

On the question of whether there are frames or rules that make him unable to make the deci-

sions he would like, a leader answers:

Yes, the teachers' agreement is too complicated and too cumbersome. I also thought so when I was a teacher. It destroys flexibility when everything has to be counted, and every-thing must be settled in terms of money.

On the same question, another leader, who, himself, has been teaching at his school, answers:

"Yes, we have done much beyond the frames! We have worked a lot more than IMAK dictates...

The teachers have been very dedicated. It has also yielded good results. "

A leader furthermore describes in the open answers in the questionnaire survey one of the

school's three biggest challenges being "that IMAK has so much power over teachers as well as

the fact that the teaching profession can be at such low level".

According to IMAK's chairman, the working time agreement is, however, very flexible, which can

easily be adapted to the needs of the individual school in collaboration with the work council. Ac-

cording to IMAK, the criticism of the teachers' working time agreement is therefore due to the

fact that schools have not adequately managed to adapt the agreement in the respective schools'

work councils.

KANUKOKA's representative in this evaluation confirms that criticism from the leaders of the

teachers' working time agreement may be due to many leaders actually interpreting the working

time agreement too rigidly. The working time agreement includes instructions that can be used

to make work at the individual school more flexible - while keeping within the structure of the

working time agreement. It is therefore also a question of the leaders managing to make use of

these tools so that the work can be done more flexibly and better adapted to the individual

school.


7.2 Collaboration with Municipality and Administrative Authorities

Cooperation with the municipality and administration is also assessed positively by the leaders.

The questionnaire survey focuses on whether the leaders get the help and support which they

need from the municipality in different areas. The village school leaders who refer to a school

leader at a town school have received similar questions as to whether they are adequately as-

sisted from there.

Help from the Municipality to the Town School

For the majority of schools, the municipal administration is situated in another town, and in three

of the four municipalities there are very few employees within the area of the education (see also

chapter 8 on the administration). Therefore, it is interesting to clarify whether school leaders

think they can get hold of a relevant employee at the municipality, when they need it. The ques-

tionnaire survey shows that five school leaders (21%) think that it is always easy. Three school

leaders (13%) have answered that it is usually easy. 42% have chosen "It is very different" - i.e.

sometimes it is easy, but sometimes it is difficult. 25%, i.e. in total six school leaders, think that it

is usually or always difficult (Table Report, section 1.1, table 8).

When it comes to administrative and management issues, a majority of the leaders think that

they usually get the help they need:

Table 28

Do you get the help from the municipality that you need when it comes to

administrative and management issues?



Yes, always 3

(17 %)

2

(33 %)

5

(21 %)

Yes, usually 12

(67 %)

4

(67 %)

16

(67 %)

Rarely 2

(11 %)

0

(0 %)

2

(8 %)

No 1

(6 %)

0

(0 %)

1

(4 %)

Total 18

(100 %)

6

(100 %)

24

(100 %)



Note: This question is only asked the part of the respondents who replied "Director/head of the municipality" to

the question "Who is your immediate superior?"

The table shows that out of the total 24 respondents, 3 town school leaders (17%) and 2 village

school leaders (33%) experience always receiving the help of the municipality they need for ad-

ministrative and management issues. 12 of town school leaders (67%) and 4 of village school

leaders (67%) find that this is usually the case. 3 town school leaders answer that they rarely or

never get the help they need. None of the village school leaders answered this. Thus, a total of

21 of the 24 responded school leaders answer that they always or usually receive the help from

the municipality that they need when it comes to administrative and management issues.

The 24 leaders have also been asked if they get the help from the municipality they need when it

comes to technical and building issues. One of the interviewed town school leaders and one of

the interviewed village school leaders answer that they always get the help they need. 11 of the

town school leaders and 2 of the village school leaders answer that they usually get the necessary

help from the municipality to such issues. 5 of the town school leaders and 2 of the village school

leaders say that this is rarely the case, while one of the village school leaders answers no. A single

town school leader also replies that this type of issue has never been relevant to seek help for.

Overall, there are 15 (62%) of the 24 interviewed school leaders who consider that they always


or usually receive the help they need in connection with questions related to technical and build-

ing issues (Table Report, section 1.2, table 10 ). Thus, the municipality's help to schools seems to

be somewhat worse in the technical/ building related area than within administration and man-

agement.

A head of administration, on their part, says that the amount of contact the administration has

with the individual schools varies and explains that it has a good reason:

We have some who have been in this game for many years and have a very well-function-ing school, and they manage themselves to a very, very large extent. We will call and write together, when there is something. Then there are some that I broadly speaking have con-tact with daily. So I'm might just say that the fact that we have no contact can also be a good sign. Those who call every day, these can be on-going cases that take a long time; these are typically difficult staff cases. In these cases, the schools are in need of help and sparring: What are we allowed to do, what do the rules say? But all my school leaders function well, we have a good contact and we can always talk together. I think our school inspectors take care of their job, there is good response. But we also make demands on them.

Help from the Town School to the Village School

19 village school teachers in the survey have answered that they have a school inspector at a

town school as the nearest superior, and that is where they should turn for help when they need

it (Table Report section 1.2, table 7). 7 of them (37%) think it is always easy to get a relevant em-

ployee (school inspector, deputy head or others) when they need it. 9 (47%) have answered that

it is usually easy, and 2 (11%) that it is very different. One thinks that it is usually difficult (Table

Report section 1.1, table 11).

The village school leaders have also been asked if they are receiving the help from the town

school they need when it comes to administrative and management issues. The question to the

village school leaders also includes educational questions based on the expectation that it may be

a relevant need for the local school leaders to be able to spar with anyone about this as well.

Table 29

Do you receive the help from the town school that you need when it comes to

educational, administrative and management issues?

Village School (N = 19)

Yes, always 7

(37 %)

Yes, usually 7

(37 %)

Rarely 4

(21 %)

No 0

(0 %)

No need for it 1

(5 %)

Total 19

(100 %)



Note: This question is only asked the part of the respondents who replied "School inspector at town school" to

the question "Who is your immediate superior?"

The table shows that 7 village school leaders answer that they always get the help from the town

school they need, while 7 village school leaders answer it is usually the case. 4 village school lead-

ers answer it is rarely the case, while one answers that the person has not been in need of it.

Overall, 14 of the total 19 respondents (74%) consider that they always or usually receive the


help from the town school they need when it comes to educational, administrative or manage-

ment issues. The leaders who have a school inspector at a town school as their immediate supe-

rior are thus also largely satisfied with the help they receive in connection with that type of issue.

The 21 leaders have also been asked if they get the help from the town school they need when it

comes to technical and building issues. To this, 7 village school leaders answer, "Yes, always",

while 5 (26%) respond, "Yes, usually". 4 village school leaders (21%) respond, "Rarely", while 2

Village school leaders (11%) answer, “no”. One single village school leader answers that he/she

has never needed that type of help. Overall, 13 of the 21 respondents (65%) answer that they

always or usually receive the help they need from the town school in connection with technical

and building issues (Table Report section 1.2, table 13). Also with respect to this question, the

answers are approximate with the responses of the leaders referring directly to the administra-

tion, thus showing that there are a few more who find it harder to get help with technical and

building issues than for administration.

Seen across the tables, a majority (88%) of the school leaders referring to the administration ex-

press that they always or usually receive the help they need from the municipality in terms of ad-

ministrative and management issues, and 74% of the village school leaders referring to a school

inspector in the town believe correspondingly that they get the help they need from the town

school. In terms of technical and building issues, there are fewer town school leaders who are

satisfied with the help of the municipality, namely 62%, and 65% of village school leaders who

are pleased with the help from the town school. However, it also shows that a relatively many do

not think they get the necessary help, and relatively many town school leaders also indicate that

it may be difficult to get a relevant employee within the municipality.

In the qualitative interview, the school leaders have also been asked how they experience the co-

operation with the municipality and the administration in general. Viewed across all the inter-

views, leaders find that they have a well-functioning relationship with the administration. A rela-

tively newly appointed leader, whose school is in a town other than the administration, says:

I have a good connection with the administration. They usually have time to help me. There have been some long-term cases, but we ourselves have managed to go to the right caseworkers, at times the director. They have been there to assist me as a leader.

Another leader whose school is in the same town as the administration expounds the relationship

with the administration like this: "The administration is a sparring partner, who is always availa-

ble. I know the school director well. We are in close contact. "Also, the relationship between the

local school leaders and the leading school inspector in the town is generally considered positive.

A village school leader explains:

I have a very good relationship with the leading school inspector in the town. I can always put forth educational or administrative questions. I have been told that I can always call at all times; so if I am in doubt, I will call the senior school inspector.

Some of the school leaders, who have not been at the management post for a long time, point

out that it takes some time to establish an optimal relationship with the administration. It is a

continuous feature that the primary part of communication between school and administration

takes place on email or phone. This means that as a new leader you typically need a little extra

time to figure out whom to turn to with different questions. In three of the four municipalities

there are former school leaders who lead the school administration. Several of the newly accred-

ited school leaders emphasise that it is an advantage when management staff themselves have

experience from practice as school leaders and they know them as former colleagues.

In some places, the leaders have permanent monthly telephone meetings with the education

manager and the other school leaders in the municipality, during which various current topics are

regularly discussed. Other places, more on-going sparring has been demanded of the municipality

on a daily basis. Some school leaders explicitly request more feedback from the municipality and


that they would like more response to the annual reports to the administration or sparring about

implementing new initiatives at school. One leader says:

You are almost entirely alone here, and I would probably have big problems with different things if I had not tried it before. It probably would have been hard. You feel alone, you do not get much contact with the administrative authorities here. It is different in Nuuk, with Kommuneqarfik Sermersooq, where meetings are held with all school leaders in the municipality every 14 days or sometimes by telephone every week. (...) We can send mail and call them, but otherwise it is the consultant from KANUKOKA I talk with regarding rules, agreements and laws.

In the chapter on the municipal level we look at the municipalities' sparring and input when it

comes to educational management.

7.3 The Competences of the Leaders In the qualitative interview, the leaders express their satisfaction with their own managerial skills.

At the same time, however, a large proportion of them in the questionnaire survey indicate that

they could have wished for more competence development in their current employment. Asked

about his/her own skills, an experienced town school leader says in one of the interviews:” I think

I have what I need. Otherwise, I ask someone else. We work very much together, the deputy

head and I.” Another leader says, "I feel the deputy head and I have the skills we need. Other-

wise we were not here! And if there is something we do not know, we ask the administration."

However, some of the relatively newly appointed school leaders mention that in the start-up

phase they have missed a more thorough knowledge of management tools that can be used in

the administrative work. One leader explains:

I definitely and absolutely do not have all the skills I need! When I was employed, it was a clear agreement that as soon as some management courses were offered, I would join them. Especially for newly appointed school leaders. But it has just not been offered yet and that is a problem. Nor can I be the only one in this situation. (...) I know that experi-ence has to come from somewhere, but it's indeed good to gain some professional skills to do something practical instead of having to go the other way every single time. Many mistakes are made when you have to try your way around, and mistakes tend to affect people negatively - in this case, those who are to provide for prosperity later on. And you may not discover them right away, because this is not a system where the feedback comes right away. Many years may pass before it is discovered that something was really a bad thing that needed to be altered. And when you do not have the experience, the adminis-trative work takes too long and too many resources compared to what it should. And that's the educational management that suffers. (...) Educational management suffers from the fact that I am an inexperienced administrator.

A village school leader also learned that there were too few to set up the management course so

she could not take it even if she wanted to. For example, she thinks that the October report to

the administration is a difficult task, like delegating tasks. In the town schools, the interviewed

leaders are generally better educated, several have a diploma in management, etc., but they may

lack competences in matters such as conflict management, difficult conversations, personal mat-

ters and general updating of rules, etc. One leader says, for example, that he has taken the

school leader course, but the administrative rules, appointments, etc. have already changed a lot.

Some leaders even have daily contact with the administration and thus get close follow-up on the

difficult things. And as one leader says, "I do not expect to ask so many questions when I get

more experienced!"

In the questionnaire survey among the school leaders, they have been asked whether they, in

their time as school leaders in Greenland, have had formal competence development that was

relevant to their job. 12 (63%) of the town school leaders and 11 (42%) of the village school

leaders answer yes. It is therefore 37% of the town school leaders and 58% of the village school


leaders who have not received relevant competence development (Table Report section 1.16, ta-

ble 142).

The school leaders, who have answered yes to the question whether they have received formal

competence development in their time as school leaders, have also been asked what competence

development they have received.

Table 30

The Leaders’ Competence Development

Town School

(N = 11)

Village School

(N = 11)

Total

(N = 22)

Management course / leader course 10 6 16

Profession-oriented course 5 8 13

Diploma or diploma courses in Greenland 7 3 10

School development course 3 3 6

Courses or education at Master’s level 2 2 4

Diploma or diploma courses in Denmark 1 1 2


Table Report section 1.16, table 143. The percentages in this table are calculated as the proportion of leaders who

have acquired a certain competence development out of the total number of leaders who, in the Table Report sec-

tion 1.6, table 142, stated whether they had received competence development or not (i.e. 19 town school leaders

and 26 village school leaders). Therefore, the percentages in this table do not match those presented in the table

in the Table Report.

Note: The respondents had the opportunity to give more than one answer to this question.

The table shows that among the school leaders who participated in the survey, there are ten

town school leaders and six village school leaders who have been on a management course or

school leader course. This corresponds to 53% of all town school leaders and 23% of all village

school leaders. Three town school leaders and three village school leaders have attended school

development courses, while five of the leaders in the town schools and eight of the leaders at the

village schools have been on a profession-oriented course. Seven of the town school leaders and

three of the village school leaders have taken a diploma or diploma courses in Greenland. Man-

agement courses / leader courses, profession-oriented courses, diploma education in Greenland

and school development courses (in order of priority) are thus the types of competence develop-

ment that most of the school leaders have received. While town school leaders to a higher extent

than village school leaders have taking a management course / leader course and / or have taken

a diploma or diploma courses in Greenland, the village school leaders have taken a profession-

oriented course more than the town school leaders. The remaining course types are reportedly

equally distributed among town and village leaders.

The school leaders in the questionnaire survey have also been asked if there is competence devel-

opment that they would like to have received in their current employment, which they were una-

ble to obtain. 8 (53%) of the town school leaders and 16 (80%) of the village school leaders an-

swer yes to this (Table Report, section 1.16, table 144). Even though the leaders in the interviews

have expressed they feel competent for their work, most of them would like to learn more.

The total of 24 school leaders who answered yes to this question have also been asked what has

been the reason why they have not been able to get the competence development they would

like to have.


Table 31

What was (were) the reason(s) why you could not get the competence development

you would like?

Town School

(N = 8)

Village School

(N = 16)

Total

(N = 24)

The relevant course/ the programme in question has not been offered during the period when I wanted it

4 11 15

I could not be away from the school as much as it required 2 5 7

The municipality would not grant it 2 3 5

There was not money for it on the school’s budget 2 3 5

Other 2 2 4

The relevant course/ the programme in question does not exist in Greenland

1 0 1

I could not travel for personal reasons 0 1 1



Note: The respondents were given the opportunity to submit up to three answers to this question. Thus, the sum

total is above 100%.

Note: This question has only been asked to the respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Is there any

competence development you would have liked in your current employment but you could not get?"

It appears that by far the most common reason that leaders have not gained competence devel-

opment as they wanted is that the relevant course / programme in question has not been offered

during the period when the school leaders would like to have taken it. 15 out of the total 24 sur-

veyed school leaders indicate this as the reason. 7 out of the total 24 respondents respond that

they could not have been away from the school that long as the participation in competency de-

velopment required. 5 school leaders say that the municipality did not want to grant the desired

competence development, while 5 responded that there was no money for it in the school's

budget. In addition, it is especially the question of required time it takes in relation to the daily

work at the school, as well as budget constraints, which are indicated as crucial to the fact that

they have not been able to gain the desired competence development.

7.4 The Tasks and Challenges of the Management As the previous sections have shown, the school leaders generally express overall satisfaction with

both the law, the cooperation with the administration and their own management skills (alt-

hough further competence development is being requested at the same time). In the qualitative

interview, the leaders also express an overall satisfaction with the distribution of work tasks as

well as the working time they have. Most school leaders also say that they have a good and well-

functioning cooperation with their deputy head, with whom most school leaders have daily spar-

ring and work discussions.

Both in the qualitative interview and in the open answers in the questionnaire survey, several of

the school leaders indicate that they experience some challenges in everyday life. Looking at it in

general, however, there is no single thing or two that is repeated in the answers. Rather, there

are many different things that are perceived as challenges in everyday life.

Particularly among the relatively newly appointed leaders, there are several who indicate that the

administrative part of the management task takes up a lot of energy - too much in relation to the

time remaining for educational management. Some of the heavy administrative tasks can be very

time consuming, among other things because you need to get into new, detailed workflows. The

October report to the administration is mentioned by several in this regard. As mentioned in the

previous section, it is largely about lack of experience and routine.


In the questionnaire for the leaders, they have also been asked how much time they spend on ed-

ucational management.

Table 32

How much of the leaders' total working hours are spent on educational management -

number of leaders



Less than 25% of the work-

ing hours

10 19 29

25-50 % of the working

hours

9 3 12

Total 19 22 41



Note: The proportions in this table are calculated on the basis of the school leaders' reports of how much time

(calculated in percentage out of 100) they use in the work tasks: own teaching, educational management, staff

management / administrative management / management of practical tasks, practical tasks, contact with munici-

pality and PPR, and collaboration with the parents. The figures in this table should therefore be seen in relation to

the time the leaders spend on the remaining tasks. No school leaders have answered that they spend more than

50% of their time on educational management.

The table shows that 10 of the town school leaders and 19 of the village school leaders indicate

that they spend less than 25% of their time on pedagogical management. 9 of the town school

leaders and 3 of the village school leader indicate that they spend 25-50% of their time on this

task. According to the questionnaire survey, the village school leaders use less time than the town

school leaders on tasks related to educational management.

Several leaders also teach classes themselves. Some do it from time to time (often because of

teacher shortage), while others themselves have chosen that teaching should be part of their

management task. Of course, it is particularly the village school leaders who spend time teaching

because their schools are so small that they cannot allocate a whole position to management

alone. The leaders have been asked about the amount of time spent on teaching tasks in the

questionnaire survey.

Table 33

How much of the leaders' total working hours are used on teaching - number of leaders



Less than 25% of the work-

ing hours

19 4 23


hours

0 14 14


hours

0 3 3

Above 75 % of the working

hours

0 1 1

Fortsættes næste side …


… fortsat fra forrige side



Total 19 22 41



Note: The proportions in this table are calculated based on the leaders' reports of how much time (calculated in

percentage out of 100) they use on the work tasks: own teaching, educational management, staff management /

administrative management / management of practical tasks, practical tasks, contact with municipality and PPR,

and cooperation with the parents. The figures in this table should therefore be seen in relation to the time the

leaders spend on the remaining tasks. No school leaders have answered that they spend more than 50% of their

time on educational management.

From the table it appears that while all (19) town school leaders answer that they spend less than

25% of their working hours on teaching tasks, it is more mixed with the village school leaders.

Among the village school leaders who answered the question, 4 respond that they spend less

than 25% of their time teaching, while 14 indicate that they spend 25-50% of their time on this.

A total of 4 of the village school leaders answer that they spend more than half of their working

hours on teaching. In addition, the leaders spend time on staff management, administrative man-

agement and management in connection with practical tasks, shown in the distribution in the ta-

ble below. Here it appears that most of the town school leaders spend 25-50% of their working

hours on administrative tasks, while the majority of village school leaders spend less than 25%.

Three leaders spend over half of their time on administration.

Table 34

How much of the leaders' total working hours are used on staff management,

administrative management, management of practical tasks - number of leaders



Less than 25 % of the work-

ing hours

3 15 18


hours

14 6 20


hours

2 1 3

Total 19 22 41

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire for leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school, 2014. Table

Report section 1.3, table 16.

Note: The proportions in this table are calculated based on the school leaders' reports of the amount of time (cal-

culated in percentage out of 100) they use on the assignments: own teaching, pedagogical management, staff

management / administrative management / management of practical tasks, practical tasks, contact with munici-

pality and PPR, and parent cooperation. The figures in this table should therefore be seen in relation to the time

the leaders spend on the remaining tasks. No school leaders have answered that they spend more than 50% of

their time on educational management.

In the qualitative interview, this picture is elaborated. Some leaders demand (in line with demand

for competence development) more tools to handle the management task. Courses in financial

management, staff management, employment law, organisational planning / management tools

and conflict management are mentioned as desirable. Other school leaders mention that it is es-

pecially tasks that are practical, such as school renovation, shattered physical surroundings, and

maintenance of premises that take up a lot of time in the daily work as a leader. Again others

find that the handling of staff cases, teacher absence and the like is the biggest time consumer in

everyday life.


New Leaders Start from Scratch

As mentioned, a large proportion of the interviewed leaders are relatively new in the managerial

position. One village school leader explains:

I started very headlong as leader, but have been able to get a lot help from the leading school inspector. I have not had any management courses and was very uncertain at first. I had to make a priority list myself. Find out what tasks there were and in what order they should be solved. But I've already learned a lot, though new things are constantly emerg-ing.

In many places, leaders also express that they realise that the major change in the management

position can cause insecurity and stress in the employee group.

It is also striking that several of the leaders who have only been one to two years in their present

school are talking about the school as something that should almost start from scratch again af-

ter they have arrived. A leader says:

It has been a little hard to get to a school that had probably run its own race. They hadn’t fulfilled any ordinary standards. For example, the workplace assessment survey had not been made when I started. They probably hadn't held that many cooperation committee meetings. They never had any Personal Development Reviews. It was all over the line, I had to get it started. (...) There was no meeting calendar where they could see what to do. (...) There were no holiday plans. (...) It was all from scratch.

Even in the schools where the new leaders are not particularly critical of what they have taken

over, it is remarkable that many fundamental conditions are referred to as something still on the

drawing board: "I want all teachers to make teaching plans", "I'm trying to get the school board

up and running", "I want more structure on the learning objectives", "there has been no educa-

tional management", "we have a lot of work in front of us". Only at a few places - with experi-

enced leaders –there are examples of efforts that have already been up and running over several

years, and now begin to provide visible results with regard to the children's performance. It paints

a picture of the change of management, which means that the transfer from the old to the new

leader is too bad, or because the school's own structures are too thin, so meeting forums, plans,

efforts, routines, etc. stall or disappears when the leader leaves and must be rebuilt by the new

one. At the same time, of course, it should not be ignored that there may be instances where a

new leader's "start over" may be needed.

7.5 The Teachers’ View on the Management While the leaders generally express satisfaction with their own competences, both interview and

questionnaire surveys show that the teachers are relatively critical of the leaders and in some

cases view their form of management in a completely different way than the leader intended.

In the questionnaire sent to the teachers, they have been asked about their assessment of man-

agement on a number of different parameters. One of the questions is whether management ap-

pears to make clear and well-founded decisions.


Table 35

How do you agree or disagree with the following statements: The management makes

clear and well-founded decisions



Agree 28 % 52 % 32 %

Mostly agree 35 % 31 % 34 %

Mostly disagree 22 % 6 % 19 %

Disagree 15 % 10 % 14 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire for teachers employed in the Greenlandic Primary school in

the school year 2013/2014. Table Report section 2.18, table 103.

It is apparent from the table that a total of 87 (32%) of the 269 teachers who answered the

question agree that the management makes clear and well-founded decisions. 92 teachers (34%)

agree mostly with this statement. However, 90 teachers (33%) indicate that they either mostly

disagree or disagree with the statement. I.e., two thirds of the teachers agree or mostly agree

that their management makes clear and well-founded decisions, while one third of the teachers

disagree or mostly disagree.

Another question also gives an indication of the teachers' confidence in the management. They

have been asked whether they agree or disagree with this statement: "I address the management

if I experience problems with my teaching or other tasks." 46% of the teachers agree (43% in

town schools and 65% in village schools), and 26% in both town and village schools mostly

agree. 31% of town school teachers disagree or mostly disagree, while this only applies to 9% of

the village school teachers (Table Report, section 2.18, table 100).

That 37% of town school teachers do not believe that their leader makes informed decisions, and

31% of them do not address their leader, if they have problems with their teaching or other

tasks, at first glance seem like many. We do not know what they do instead - and how the leader

then learns that they are unhappy or have problems with solving their tasks, but it might be

worth investigating further. It is also interesting that the village school teachers have significantly

greater confidence in their management than the town school teachers.19

The Management’s Ability to Set the Direction

The teachers have also been asked if they think the management is good at communicating.

Table 36

How do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The management is good

at communicating



Agree 30 % 60 % 35 %



Disagree 19 % 9 % 17 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for teachers who were employed in the Greenlandic Pri-

mary school in school year 2013/2014. Table Report section 2.18, table 102.

19 The differences are statistically significant on all questions except the question of whether leaders provide a pedagogical direction.


The table shows that a total of 169 (62%) of the teachers indicate that they agree or mostly

agree that management is good at communicating. 101 of the teachers (37%) indicate con-

versely that they disagree or mostly disagree in this statement. While almost two thirds of the

teachers find the management is good at communicating, there are also about one third of the

teachers who disagree with this assessment. Again, there is a big difference between town and

village school teachers. A total of 42% of town school teachers mostly disagree or disagree that

the management is good at communicating, while this only applies to 15% of the village school

teachers.

In the qualitative interview, there is a clear point in many places that teachers experience man-

agement as weak and lack some clearer guidelines from the leader's side. A teacher says:

The management must step into character. We lack professionalism and efficiency. We must be different as teachers, but we must understand each other. We do not have a strong management; I take care of things myself. There is no dedicated management. Per-haps there is too much confidence. We would like to have structures.

What makes this quote extra interesting is that the leader in question works very consciously to

involve the teachers, to make them express themselves and to assume co-responsibility for the

school. Exactly the same inconsistencies are also seen in another school.

However, the teachers request specifically in several places that the management provides some

clearer structures for how they should handle their work in general. Several teachers agree that a

clearer established course from the management will also benefit the teacher staff at the school

as a whole. This applies, for example, to the use of Effective Teaching Principles. If the manage-

ment does not show that it is aware of the teachers' implementation of the teaching, there is a

high risk that teachers will not follow up on initiated efforts. For example, a teacher says about

the use of Effective Teaching Principles:

The management does not check what we do. I miss that they ask how it goes and follow up. The management does not support the use of them [Effective Teaching Principles] in general. Areas of efforts are launched but not followed up, therefore ebb away.

The lack of support from the leader, as many teachers experience, can thus also contribute to the

teachers doing everything in their own way, each and every one, thus losing the gain by pulling

in the same direction.

In the questionnaire survey, the teachers have specifically been asked whether they believe that

management indicates an educational direction:

Table 37

How do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The management

indicates an educational direction



Agree 39 % 45 % 40 %



Disagree 11 % 11 % 11 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire to teachers who were employed in the Greenlandic Primary



The table shows that 40% of the teachers in the questionnaire survey agree that the manage-

ment indicates an educational direction, and 35% mostly agree. 26% disagree or mostly disa-

gree. There is no significant difference on how teachers in town and village schools look at it. The

figures indicate that, after all, only a small part of the schools are faced with teachers lacking ed-

ucational direction from management. However, the teachers have also been asked whether

management provides "pedagogical, professional sparring", and a total of 65% agree or mostly

agree that it does, while a total of 35% disagree or mostly disagree (Table Report section 2.18,

table 98). It is therefore slightly more negative. Almost the same division of answers is obtained

from the question of whether teachers agree that management inspires them in their work (Table

Report, section 2.18, Table 99).

Again, we see that a majority seems to be (reasonably) satisfied, but the minority that is not is

quite big. A leader is convinced that his teachers think they lack educational leadership and he is

also inclined to agree with them. As a relatively new leader, he has just not reached the point

where he has time to provide it.

The leader must therefore be both a visible and a strong leader and a leader who manages to get

his/her employees with him/her. Something that some of the leaders themselves touch upon in

the interviews. One leader describes his/her approach to management like this:

I only have one learning style - and that is to lead. So I lead. That's why I also teach a little. And I use the things I have used in teaching as examples. I'm not smarter than others - I'm just working a lot more. I come as the first in the morning and go as the last in the after-noon. (...) I'm also a whip - and I have chosen some strong teachers that I take the lead with. You cannot dictate your way to anything; that's not where we're at this school. I take hold of the good teachers, those who can be moved. I see it as a stream to be re-versed.

The teachers in the questionnaire have also been asked if they agree that "the management is

good at enhancing a feeling of community at work” - a theme that is not just about cooperation

but also about taking the lead and gaining support for the common direction.

Table 38

How do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The management is good

at enhancing a feeling of community at work



Agree 29 % 51 % 33 %



Disagree 15 % 6 % 13 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %



The table shows that 68% of the teachers agree or mostly agree, however, with a difference be-

tween town and village, 65% of town school teachers and 81% of village school teachers agree-

ing with this. Conversely, 35% of town school teachers disagree or mostly disagree, while this

only applies to 19% of the village school teachers. Again, the majority is satisfied, but a non-in-

significant minority is not. Regarding this exact question, there is an interesting (and statistically

significant) difference in the answers between the Greenlandic-educated and Danish-educated

teachers respectively, where the Greenlandic-educated are more dissatisfied: 19% of the Danish-

educated have answered "Mostly disagree" or "Disagree", whereas it applies to 36% of the

Greenlandic-educated (Table Report section 3.2, table 25).


The Management’s Feedback to the Individual Teacher

Where the previous was about the leader's ability to lead the team and get it behind him, the

leader also has a task of directing and motivating the individual teacher. The leader is responsible

for the educational quality of the teaching and therefore must also know how the teachers work

and ensure that they solve their task.

A teacher at a town school misses more individual contact: "The management should listen

more. (...) They are a bit invisible. I also miss some praise from them. The management is busy

with everything but "seeing" the teachers." Another teacher also thinks that the leader should

see and praise the teachers:" I miss the management rousing the teachers. It is very important. It

makes you want to engage. It's heading in that direction, but they have to do it even more. And

there is a need for follow-up."

But the leaders who take the task seriously, for example, by observing the teachers' teaching, can

also encounter resistance. A leader thus says that there are teachers at his school who do not

"want" him to observe their teaching. The interesting thing is that he is obviously stopped by

their resistance.

Another leader is not, he says bluntly:

There are many things we can discuss, but there are some things we just need to do where I say "that's how we do it," it's an order. Teachers generally do not like direct or-ders, but there are some things you just have to follow because it's the law or that’s how life is. It's not a democracy here, I'm not elected - I'm here to lead things. There are some democratic things that must be present, otherwise you will never get your employees sup-porting it, but there are some things that are dictated from above. (...) They are a little au-tonomous, the teachers.

7.6 The School Management - Assessment The school leaders generally express a fairly high degree of satisfaction with their structure for

self-determination. There does not seem to be inappropriate legislation, excessive central man-

agement or the like. The most significant limitation that the leaders experience comes from the

working time agreement with IMAK, but according to IMAK and KANUKOKA's school consult-

ant, it is because they are not aware that it can be handled more flexibly than it typically is.

The administration in the municipality is a place you turn to for help and support, and most

school leaders are also pleased with the access. However, there is a non-insignificant minority

who feels a little left to himself/herself or finds it difficult to get hold of the relevant employees or

get the help they need. In view of the fact that the municipalities do not really give the schools

the educational management, which they must according to the law (which will be discussed in

chapter 8), it is remarkable that the leaders do not really demand this.

School leaders are also evenly satisfied with their working conditions. They work a lot, especially

those who have only a few years of experience, and they say it is difficult finding the time for ed-

ucational management, because the administrative and organisational / personnel-related issues

take a lot of time. But even if they regret it, it is not something that causes them big frustrations.

Only some indicate that it is a problem. Again, it can be perceived as a problem that the school

leaders do not want to exert more educational management. Chapter 2 on teaching and Chapter

3 about the students showed that educational management is a shortcoming in the school, so

the school leaders should also want to exercise it.

The leaders in the interviews are generally very satisfied with their own competences, although

the questionnaire survey shows that there are not many leaders with relevant continuing educa-

tion, and many in vain have attempted to attend, for example, the school leader course.

A relatively large proportion of the leaders are new to the job, and several of them describe their

task in terms that make it sound like they have more or less built a school from scratch, which


they obviously have not. At the same time, they are talking a lot about all the new things to hap-

pen rather than the results they have achieved. It gives the impression of "starting over" and

weakness in the deliveries from leader to leader or in the structure of the school. If there is no

continuity, if you always start over and never see results of year-long targeted efforts, it is obvious

that you exploit the resources badly and lose motivation and momentum.

The teachers in the interviews call for more (i.e. clear, targeted, acknowledging) leadership, and

the questionnaires show a fairly large minority of about one third, who does not believe the man-

agement is good at communicating, showing direction and being inspiring, and who do not turn

to the management with work-related problems. There are too many to ignore it. Employees

who have this opinion are - regardless of whether they are right or not - hardly as committed as

they could be, or motivated to deliver a good effort as they should be.

This is in fact backed up by the quotes from leaders who point out that there may be a relatively

"autonomous" attitude among the teachers. The leaders can have a significant challenge, alto-

gether, to gain legitimacy among the employees, even though they in reality call for clarity and

direction.


8 The School Administrations

The school area is administered very differently in Sermersooq than in the three other municipali-

ties. This is immediately reflected in the fact that in Sermersooq there is a proper school depart-

ment with seven to eight employees, where the school area in the three other municipalities is

very sparsely staffed with one to two employees.

The evaluation shows that the four municipal councils formulate, on a very small scale, objectives,

strategies and policies in the school area. Only Sermersooq has written documents about this,

and here the school is mentioned in single sentences alone.

The supervision is not formalised or systematic in three of the municipalities. In one municipality,

reliance is placed squarely on that there will be complaints if something is not working as it

should.

The municipalities do not supervise students who do not receive primary school education, except

at the sheep shelters.

The municipalities have not - apart from Kujalleq - delegated competence to school boards be-

yond minimum. This is because either it has not been considered or an assessment that the

school boards are not the right for the job.

8.1 The Municipalities’ Administration of the School Section The four municipalities' school administrations are very different in the way that in three of the

municipalities - Municipality Kujalleq, Qeqqata Municipality and Qaasuitsup Municipality - there is

only a very small staff of two to three employees working specifically with the school, while Mu-

nicipality Sermersooq has a school department with a director of education, deputy chief, four

school consultants, a travelling teacher and an office clerk. However, the three aforementioned

municipalities are not completely comparable, as Qaasuitsup Municipality has delegated some

management tasks to senior school leaders. The following table shows what the four administra-

tions have to administer:

Table 39

Municipalities, schools and number of students

Number of students Number of town schools Number of village schools

Municipality Kujalleq 987 3 9

Municipality Sermersooq 2.966 8 8

Qeqqata municipality 1.307 3 6

Qaasuitsup municipality 2.610 9 31

Total 7.870 23 54

Source: The Primary School in Greenland 2013-14, Inerisaavik 2014.

The reports from the municipalities show that the big difference in staffing specifically result in

great differences in terms of how the administration is more substantively handled.


In the three (administratively) small municipalities, the municipality has not adopted policies or

formulated objectives in the area of the Primary School, except that in Qaasuitsoq, they have set

a goal of "raising the professionalism" at the school. In Sermersooq, the municipal council has a

coalition agreement with objectives in the school area and a child and family policy of some rele-

vance. In addition, the administration has internal areas of efforts adopted by the politicians, as

well as administrative areas of efforts set up by the administration together with the schools.

A school leader in Qeqqata Municipality describes what comes from the municipality in this way:

There are five areas in the coalition agreement in the municipal council, but at the moment they focus on teacher absenteeism, student absenteeism and the youth target group [which was called the residual group before]. We have to register and send data to the municipality. We also had a school seminar this summer with all the school leaders and the administration, the municipal council and the village councils regarding the municipality's goals. Among other things, there were discussions on lesson-subject-distribution and school management, management style etc. There were also external speakers who spoke of the Finnish model and one from England. In January we received iPads and some short courses for the teachers in the use of it. It was also a municipal initiative.

Qaasuitsup Municipality has announced that the subjects Danish and mathematics are effort ar-

eas, but the follow-up has been limited. A school leader describes it this way:

There are no educational announcements as such from the municipality. We held a meet-ing last year where it was agreed that there was a desire to increase the proficiency in Danish and mathematics and to spend a few [subject] days at the schools. But then noth-ing further has happened. There are no employees who can support it so we need to find out with our teachers ourselves. So based on this, we have considered what to do now. In addition, six teachers in the municipality have been given lessons as quality developers, but we have not heard from them. I would have liked them to come here. That's what you need if you need to develop - especially in the subjects they talk about, but also in English. We have asked where they are, but they have been flooded with work....

When §43 of the Primary School Act states that "the municipal council determines the objectives

and structures for the activities of the schools", it can be concluded that, in practice, this limits

itself to the formulation of some areas of effort.

It is also not immediately possible to see that the municipalities comply with the provision in para-

graph 5: "The municipal council decides on the following: General guidelines for the activities of

the schools in cooperation with the community's public information and association, voluntary

child and youth work and other circles of interested citizens on the care and coordination of cul-

tural activities."

11 out of 19 town school leaders and 16 of the 26 village school leaders who participated in the

questionnaire survey (corresponding to 58 and 62% respectively) have indicated that their munic-

ipality has policies and / or formulated objectives in the area of the primary school. 3 town school

leaders and 6 village school leaders have answered "Do not know" (Table Report, section 1.2,

table 2). As stated above, such policies or objectives may consist of a few lines or areas of action,

formulated in headings. The interesting thing is whether the content management of the munici-

palities has any significance in everyday life. The school leaders have therefore been asked: "To

what extent does the municipal council's policies or objectives in the area of the primary school,

in your opinion, have a concrete impact on how your school develops?" but only 10 town school

leaders and 16 village school leaders have answered the question. Two town school leaders and

five village school leaders have answered "to a great extent". The rest believes to some extent or

to a lesser extent (Table Report section 1.2, table 4).

The school leaders have been asked in the interviews whether they get educational management

from the administrations, and - apart from the wording of the areas of action - they say they

have not. But most do not miss it either. They feel in close contact with the administration, and


there is always great satisfaction with the support from there. It is much more about the purely

administrative issues: economics and human resources. Only a single leader from a big town

school mentions it. She explains that there are "small problems with the municipal council". E.g.,

they should have presented a man for school board elections, but he lives in another town and

did not turn up. She also points out that there are no overall goals from the municipality or any-

thing in the field of local electives (see section 8.2 below). She thinks it is missing.

As previously mentioned (section 7.1), the school leaders have also been asked in the question-

naires whether they want more self-determination or more structures / guidelines in the educa-

tional area, and here one town school leader would like more self-determination, while two

would like more structures. The rest, which also means all the village school leaders in the survey,

were satisfied with the balance between the two (Table Report section 1.3, table 20).

In the interview with KANUKOKA's consultant in the field of education about the administration's

task in the educational area, he confirms that it is rare that the municipalities contribute. "It's

more Inerisaavik who does that," he believes.

8.2 Local Electives The subject area of local electives covering all the practical-musical subjects is intended as a sub-

ject area where the school can draw on local resource people and the local culture, and there-

fore, it is the intention that the school boards propose and the municipal councils approve the

concrete teaching plans for this subject area.

The Primary School Act on Teaching Plans for Local Electives

§47, paragraph 9: The school board prepares suggestions to the municipal council (...) on

teaching plans for (...) local electives.

All four municipal administrations write in their statements for this evaluation that this has not

happened and that the central curriculum guidelines are used. It does not sound in the interviews

as if this is something management plans on changing. In one municipality, it is mentioned that

there have been "approaches" to fill this gap, but it has just never happened. In one municipality,

employees acknowledge that it is not something they have thought about, and another munici-

pality expressed that it may be a wrong expectation to think this should be possible to handle lo-

cally. The only approach, allegedly, there has been by local politicians to give local electives a true

local character has been in the municipality of Kujalleq, where the sheep owners have expressed

a wish for having students as interns during the lambing season and to mow the grass. The ad-

ministration may suspect that this rather bounces in a desire to get free labour during peak peri-

ods.

One head of administration deals more closely with the question and explains that it may not be

a mere forgetfulness that the municipalities have not completed this provision, but more is an in-

dication that the construction of local electives does not work quite fundamentally. At the same

time, he perceives the introduction of local electives as a de facto downgrading of the practical-

musical subject areas that did not get the local characteristics into the school, which was other-

wise intended. This part of the interview is reproduced in its entirety as it quite well reflects the

other messages that have come during the evaluation of local electives.

Interviewer: Why have you not set learning objectives for local electives?

[The respondent hesitates] Interviewer: Is it a folly, is it a wrong idea?


If you ask me, it's a malfunction, but that's another aspect of the case. If you ask why the local council didn’t, I don’t know. Interviewer: Have you asked them?

No. Interviewer: Why haven’t you asked them? There are many reasons for that. Well, I hope it will be changed. Now I do not know how it went with Inerisaavik, but the grapevine has it that you should start looking at this sub-ject area because it might be a good idea, but it might not work so well in reality. And I still hope that they are working on it. Interviewer: What is wrong with it?

You've taken a lot of subjects and put them together in a pool and divided them into groups. There are many good ideas behind it. It is very much something they have initiated in Denmark also, but you lose the professionalism of the subject, i.e. in the individual sub-ject. Let's take woodwork as an example. You lose the basics of learning craftsmanship, because it is mixed with some other things, and the teacher is struggling to control what it is you have to do. And it is hard for them to be skilled teachers in all the sub-subjects, e.g. in crafts and design. At the same time, we have a very big crafts tradition and we have a lot of students, who would profit hugely from working with woodwork or home econom-ics, or whatever it could be, and get some successful experiences there. But because sud-denly there are other subjects to be included of no interest to them, it will create a dis-tance to the whole subject. It is an indefinable size for the schools. I almost believe we have as many ways to do it as we have schools. Interviewer: But was it not the intention that you and the local council should make the structure - for example, you choose to say that in our municipality we understand crafts and design to be woodwork, etc.?

They do not really allow that, because you need all the elements. Interviewer: But you may focus it a little. For example, say that here in this town we are very good at music, so we put our energy into this - is that not the idea behind it? Well, I really think that was the idea, but ... - now you have to be careful about interpret-ing - but I think the idea was that we should also take care not only to play music and for-get all about sports and outdoor life. And then they might have rushed to say that we must have it all and then it starts to get difficult. We also had to obtain local teachers to support, for example, building sleds, playing handball, etc. It is a really, very nice thought, but who can just leave work during school hours and go there to teach at the school? It would also be an additional expense for the school. We have been able to do that in some places, but generally it's just not possible. No, it's too undefined; it's too diffuse for schools and teachers to handle. Interviewer: Still, something must take place during the lessons at the schools, in outdoor classes, woodwork etc. What is that based on then?

Yes, there does, there is being taught various subject areas, but I think we lose a profes-sionalism, and I think we lose many students, where the school has become insanely aca-demic. And it's a pity because we first of all lose some students that we could have caught by including practical arts, secondly, we have a huge tradition in music, crafts, cooking, etc., which we somehow also lose. Not because I say we must educate ourselves for the National Museum, but we must hold on to the traditions we have and we will lose them if we just hold on to the academic books.


Interviewer: But is the number of lessons for local electives not the same as the sum of woodwork, handwork, etc. previously? This is up to you. You just have to ensure that all subject areas are represented. So it fluc-tuates. Some schools focus on sports, two lessons a week, and then you have one lesson for the other. Some schools run with terms, so they have two lessons, and then they change for Christmas so they get through all the subject areas. There are many ways to do it. But I think it could be nice if it was more professional, woodwork, needlework, etc., and then expanded the structure within these subject areas. Because teachers also find it hard to relate to the subject, they are at risk of teaching needlework, even if they are actually teachers of woodwork, and they are insecure about it. This is also reflected on the teach-ing.

In spite of the fact that the municipalities have not formulated teaching plans or local learning

objectives, 36% of the school leaders in the questionnaire survey believe that there are such mu-

nicipal objectives. There are 12 village school leaders and 3 town school leaders, who believe this

(Table Report, section 1.6, table 38).

Some teachers also confirm the view of the head of administration. The teachers in a big town

school say that "it's a big topic". They think it is not tangible: "We miss woodwork, art, needle-

work, domestic science and music. Not all teachers can teach all that. They become insecure.

There are always some problems with it." A leader in another town also says in line with this:

"The municipality has not done anything. We use the old methods. What we can teach also de-

pends on the teachers. (...) It's coincidences. But we have sports and outdoor activities for all stu-

dents every week. We have also included more lessons ourselves." A leader in another municipal-

ity says: "The municipality has not made learning objectives for local electives. We have held a

seminar about what is local here and whether we have some resource people we can use, but it

has not been taken any further. We are all equally to blame. "At a village school, the leader

says," We only have needlework and sports. We're outside until it's fall. We do not have a room

for local electives. It depends on whether there are lessons left for it ... "

8.3 Supervision of the Schools The municipalities must supervise schools. In practice, it appears that this supervision is carried

out very differently in the four municipalities, and in no case is the supervision regular and sys-

tematic.

The provision in the Act reads: "The municipal council regularly supervises the activities of the

schools, including in relation to the school's compliance with the provisions of this Inatsisartut

law."

In Sermersooq, the school department's employees attend regular visits to the schools and have

talks with all parties and the school boards. The audit also includes conditions such as coopera-

tion and mental working environment, but in particular the physical structure has given rise to

initiatives for improvement. The municipality writes in its statement that "there is also a continu-

ous dialogue with the school leaders about the desirability of the schools continuously promoting

the pedagogical development. In particular, requirements, instruction and guidance on the work

of the pedagogical council, the school board, the cooperation committee and the student coun-

cil." The municipality has also attached four examples of supervisory reports, one of which has

led to the fact that a staff member from the municipality was stationed at the school in order to

get the basic cooperation to function again.

In the other three municipalities, supervision is not actually carried out during inspection visits. In

one municipality, they visit the schools when holding management meetings, in the other two,

there are no resources to get around, so the audit is based on the annual October reports. More-

over, they rely on complaints if there is anything that is not working as it should. One of the mu-

nicipalities also works on the counselling teachers and subject counsellors from the town schools

visiting the village schools more, and this is also perceived as a form of supervision. In another

municipality, the administration's employee determines that it is a "significant area of action". A


PPR employee finds that there is "very little attention to village education". By way of example,

she mentions a village where she has observed an untrained teacher who teaches 1st graders in

Greenlandic without knowing any linguistic games and phonetic learning, and who allows the

children to spell as in the old days with the naming of the letters.

In spite of the fact that the municipalities do not even claim that they are actually supervising,

more than half of the school leaders experience inspection visits at least once a year. At least that

is what 11 town school leaders (which are more than in Municipality Sermersooq) and 8 village

school leaders answer. 6 town school leaders and 10 village school leaders believe that it happens

less often, and 2 and 8, respectively, say that it never occurs (Table Report, section 1.4, table 26).

Looking at the quality of the supervision, the school leaders believe that it could be better. The

table below shows that 10 of the town school leaders, i.e. just over half, believe that the munici-

pality's supervision is thorough and qualified to a lesser extent or not at all. 10 of the village

school leaders, representing 38%, are of the same opinion. 3 town school leaders and 5 village

school leaders believe that it is thorough and qualified to a great extent, and the rest - respec-

tively 6 and 11 - answer "to some extent".

Table 40

To what extent do you think the municipality's supervision of your school is thorough

and qualified?



To a great extent 3 5 8

To some extent 6 11 17

To a lesser extent 10 5 15

Not at all 0 5 5

Total 19 26 45



Another way the municipalities can implement a form of quality assurance of the schools is to

provide feedback on the annual reports or on inspection visits. Almost a third of the school lead-

ers in the questionnaire survey - 5 town school leaders and 9 village school leaders - answer that

they always get this. 7 town school leaders and 5 village school leaders answer that they some-

times get it, while 7 town school leaders and 12 village school never receive such feedback (Table

Report, section 1.4, table 27). Of the leaders who always or sometimes receive it, almost half are

using the feedback in their own quality development of the school - i.e. 6 town school leaders

and 5 village school leaders. An equivalent number uses them to some extent, and 4 leaders re-

spond "to a lesser extent" (Table Report, section 1.4, table 28).

8.4 Supervision of Students not Following the Teaching of the Primary school

The municipal council is obliged to keep an eye on all students subject to compulsory education:

All children must receive education

§43. The municipal council (...) ensures that all children subject to compulsory education in

the municipality are enrolled in primary school or receive an education that targets what is

usually required in primary school.

However, the municipal councils cannot, because the administrative authorities do not always

know if there are children who do not follow primary school education as they should, and they

also have no readiness or system to acquire the knowledge.


The statements from the four administrations show that it is not a problem that is paid special

attention to. None of the municipalities have been able to put a figure on how many children it

concerns. One answers "hopefully no one" and has not been able to answer a question about

how to supervise whether such children receive education. One municipality replies that "if the

student leaves, the supervision of the student is the responsibility of the social services". In Serm-

ersooq, there is a private school and it is stated that the administration supervises it. However,

there is no "continuous or structured supervision of children placed in orphanages, long-term ill

children or special institutions". In municipality Kujalleq there are 15 students who receive home-

schooling at the sheep shelters, and they have clear guidelines for the supervision of the munici-

pality.

But it is also quite different children who should be the focus here, according to the employees at

the four PPR offices. For example, children in the residential institutions or children in nomadic

families who move so much that the municipalities cannot initiate an effort before they move on.

One of the employees tells us that especially teaching at level 1, they experience children who

constantly travel between towns and villages, which means they do not receive coherent continu-

ous education. The PPR notes that there are major gaps in their learning. For children in care, it

may also be a question of two municipalities being involved and having a hard time deciding who

is responsible for what. There may also be village children who have entered the town school in

the senior classes. Several students find it hard to live at student homes and get thrown out due

to poor behaviour. Then they drop out of school and there is none of the different actors who

take on the responsibility for them. For example, there may be conflicts between the parents and

the superintendent. PPR is informed about it, but does not have many solutions to address it.

The school leaders in the towns should initially have an overview of whether all children of the

educational age are coming to school and they have therefore been asked if they know if there is

a child in their school district that does not go to school or get education and thus does not com-

ply with compulsory education. To this, 13 of the 19 town leaders answer "Yes, I'm sure". 5

have answered "Yes, I believe so" and one has answered "No, I do not know". (Table Reports,

section 1.12, table 122). The administrative authorities do not ask them about it either.

In short, it can thus be concluded that the municipal councils do not comply with the task of en-

suring that children who do not attend primary school receive "an education that is aimed at

what is usually required in primary school".

8.5 The Municipality's Role in Time Allocation and the Organisation of Teaching

The Primary School Act provides for a high level of decentralisation of important decisions on

number of lessons, the organisation of the teaching, etc. The authorities have therefore been

asked how they manage their authority in this area.

Allocation of Lessons for Subjects and Subject Areas

The municipalities' answers are so short that they are reproduced in their entirety. The question

reads: According to which criteria are lessons allocated for subjects and subject areas?

The school management's task to carry out this function. The municipality allocates a structure based on the minimum number of lessons of the Pri-mary School Act. The school department issues an indicative time allocation plan for the announced structure. The individual school boards change the distribution of the lessons in relation to the individual school's test results, level tests and effort areas. The criteria are, of course, based on pedagogical assessment based on number of stu-dents, etc. Tests and test results are included in the considerations.

In the last municipality, the head of department informs that the criteria may be based on an ed-

ucational assessment, student numbers, and available teachers or other. The extent of learning


objectives also has a great influence. In addition, he believes that the schools and school boards

are good at adjusting the lesson allocation according to the results of the final and level tests. The

administration has never experienced failing to approve a school's allocation of lessons/ subjects.

Municipal guidelines for division of levels, class division and / or division into smaller

groups?

The administrations have also been asked if the municipality has a policy or guidelines for level

divisions, class division and / or division into smaller groups. Three of the municipalities answer no

to this, and the third describes the level division (1st to 3rd, 4th to 7th and 8th to 10th grade)

and that a class must have no more than 24 students at the start of the year and the highest of

26 students during the year, otherwise it must be divided.

The municipalities have obviously not chosen to engage actively in the considerations or strate-

gies in this area.

8.6 Supplementary Teaching The Primary School Act stipulates in §16 that "supplementary education must be given to stu-

dents who temporarily have difficulty following the ordinary teaching in one or more subjects" -

e.g. because they have been ill for a long period of time, have moved from a school where the

teaching has been much different than at the new school or have moved to the country and do

not speak Greenlandic.

12 out of 19 town school leaders answer in the questionnaire survey that they have had students

at the school who received supplementary teaching in the school year 2013/14. Thus, 7 have not.

In the village schools there are 2 out of 25 who had supplementary teaching on the schedule (Ta-

ble Report, section 1.13, table 124.)

The administrations have been asked to state whether the municipality has prepared guidelines

for the organisation of supplementary teaching, the amount of resources allocated for it and how

many students it concerned in 2013/14.

In three of the statements from the municipalities it is stated that the municipality has no special

guidelines. One place justified it by arguing that they "follow the statutory guidelines for the allo-

cation of supplementary teaching." One place states that the schools are awarded six lessons per

student, which the schools themselves can control. And in one of the statements, it appears that

"supplementary teaching is approved when necessary. There are no earmarked resources for the

purpose, but are addressed continuously." One municipality does not answer the question.

The brief answers, as expressed in their entirety, suggest that supplementary teaching is not

something that the administrations focus on.

8.7 The Role of the School Boards In the 1997-1996 Primary School Reform, one of the most important elements was "decentralisa-

tion at municipal and school level and the introduction of school boards". (The Road to Atuarfitsi-alak, a discussion paper, Inerisaavik 2000). In the comments on the draft regulation from 2002,

the intentions are described as follows: "Adaptation of the school boards' tasks and powers in

accordance with the revision of the content section."

It appears that the school boards are far from playing the role they are envisaged in the Primary

School Act. However, in many places, they occupy a completely different role as ambassadors be-

tween school and parents, as discussed in section 6.5. The school boards are discussed here in

the chapter on school administrations because it is up to the municipalities to delegate a large

number of tasks to the school boards if they are to play a greater role in the management of

schools.


The Tasks of the School Board

The Primary School Act’s §47 stipulates on the task of the school board (EVA’s highlights):

The school board carries out its activities within the goals and limits set by the

municipal council, cf. §43, and furthermore supervises the school's activities.

Paragraph 2. The school board determines goals for the school’s teaching and other ac-

tivities.

Paragraph 3. The school board approves the school’s plan for the teaching for every

school year, including plans for:

1 the students’ number of lessons,

2 the subjects’ number of lessons,

3 the organisation of the teaching in subject-divided courses and interdisciplinary courses,

4 the supply of the local electives,

5 special education at the school,

6 the supply of educationally arranged voluntary activities,

7 division of students into classes,

8 school-home-cooperation, cf. paragraph 4,

9 information to the homes about the students' benefit of the teaching,

10 the division of work between teachers,

11 joint events for the students in the teaching, and

12 courses as well as continuing and further education of the school’s staff.

Paragraph 4. The school board determines guidelines for the school’s other activities,

including the school and home consultation on the individual child's schooling and educa-

tional course and other cooperation between school and home.

Paragraph 5. The school board approves within the financial structures stipulated for the

school, the school’s budget.

Paragraph 6. The school board approves teaching materials and establishes rules of

conduct.

Paragraph 7. The school board approves within the guidelines established by the munici-

pal council whether the school's activities must include the management and coordination

of cultural activities, cf. §43, paragraph 2, No. 5.

Paragraph 8. The school board must give its opinion to the municipal council on the ap-

pointment of teachers and leaders, cf.§43 paragraph 2, No. 2.

Paragraph 9. The school board prepares proposals for the municipal council on the

school's supplement to teaching plans for the subjects and subject areas mentioned in

§10, paragraph 1, No. 1 - 4, and teaching plans for the local electives mentioned in §10,

paragraph 1, No. 5, cf. §43, paragraph 3.

Paragraph 10. The school board makes recommendations to the municipal council on

experimental and development work to the extent that it exceeds the goals and limits

set by the municipal council.

Paragraph 11. The school board may issue an opinion and submit proposals to the munici-

pal council on all matters relating to the school in question. The school board must give an

opinion on all questions submitted by the municipal council.


Paragraph 12. At the end of each school year, the school board presents an annual re-

port to the municipal council on the school's activities during the school year. The annual

report also includes the school board's overall plan for the coming school year's activities.

The municipal council may delegate tasks to the school boards according to §43,

Paragraph 4. The municipal council may delegate, in whole or in part, its powers pursu-

ant to this Inatsisartut Act to the school boards other than those in §23 og §38, paragraph

1, mentioned tasks, supervisory obligation and the powers deriving from the appropriation

and employers' competence.

This may be:

• Structures for:

1 class formation,

2 the students’ number of lessons, and

3 special education etc.

• General guidelines for the activities of the schools in cooperation with the community's

public information and association, voluntary child and youth work and other circles of

interested citizens on the organisation and coordination of cultural activities.

• Preparation of a written management agreement for the head of the school in which

the school leader's educational responsibilities and tasks are clarified.

• Other questions not delegated to the individual schools, including reference to teaching

at other schools, guidelines for enrolment and admission, school meals and school li-

brary scheme in the municipality.

The evaluation has not been able to go into detail whether the individual school boards perform

these tasks. However, the four administrations have been asked whether the municipality has

made use of the opportunity to delegate further tasks to the school boards pursuant to §43.

Three of the municipalities have not. One municipality just answers no in the statement and justi-

fies it as a political decision. In the other municipality, they have simply delegated the appoint-

ment of uneducated/hourly paid staff to the school boards together with daily operations and

compliance with budgets. In the third, the head of administration explains that it is not some-

thing that has been looked into as such, but that it is something they would be "nervous" to do.

It is the administration's impression that it is not all school boards that function equally well. They

have called for more courses for the school board members, but it is "unfortunately not priori-

tised much", he says, adding that they are "not quite well prepared for the work".

In some schools, there is a very good collaboration with the school boards, but in some it is very, very difficult. The leaders have become better and better prepared over time so they know what they can and can stop it before it goes completely wrong. But there are some really ugly examples of school boards calling teachers in for talks, saying that they should be fired and the likes and that's not acceptable. (...)It is not a deliberate decision on our part that there should not be delegated more powers to them. We make a point of saying to our leaders that they should remember to get the school board involved. But one cannot delegate to some and not to others. In some places they are involved and have a professional approach to it, in other places it's a bit more difficult.

In the last municipality, a number of areas have been delegated: decisions on class formation and

level organisation, the distribution of the class-year norm for lessons in subject areas and subjects,

use of group lessons (former special education), guidelines for the allocation of supplementary

teaching, guidelines for the use of substitute teachers and organising lessons for extensive special

education. Finally, school boards in the municipality can transfer funds between the school ac-

counts.

However, if you ask the school leaders in this municipality about how their school boards work,

you do not get the impression that they are making these types of decisions. One school leader


says that they "have ideas for us, but they are not that governing. They do not decide anything.

"Another in the same municipality says that there has been no precedent for the school board to

say anything but to say yes to the school leader. Now, however, there is a new board that has de-

cided, among other things, that the school will make a school magazine. The school leader is

asked if the school board makes decisions in all the areas delegated from the municipality and he

answers:

No, but then again, I can't imagine why they should decide on e.g. the lesson allocation/ subject distribution plan. They have no professional insight to do anything but say yes to what is being mapped. I constantly remind them that they are my bosses, because a board must be taken very seriously - I am just the daily manager. However, there are some things where they will have to follow what we bring. When we do a lesson allocation/ subject dis-tribution, we do not do it for fun! And, in fact, they do not really decide much. It may be that is how it appears, but it is the administration that approves. I know that it is formally the municipal council that approves, but it's a bit in the same way. It is the administration that is in control of the economy. So it's an "co-determination on paper", it's fictional. (...) It's more things like parent cooperation, the focus you have, the work of the feature weeks and the likes, which they interfere with. They may also come up with something. At the last meeting we had, they surprised me a little by picking up the school magazine and wanting to look at the level test results. It became an exciting discussion. Yes, the school magazine was not a discussion; it was in principle a vertical order. But then we discussed the content a little, etc. With regard to the level test results, they would like some thor-ough explanation as to why it is going so badly.

Several leaders - also in other municipalities - talk about the school boards having ideas, things

they want to discuss and have the school working on. It is mentioned that they are in control of

economy and operation, and in several places they are interested in whether the school's physical

surroundings is in order. One leader says:

We have good cooperation. Fortunately, they are interested and committed and make de-mands, for example, to our values. They come by on visits. They take part in the recruit-ment, but they are not formally the employment authority. They want to focus on our cul-ture and traditions. They are also interested in the children's absence, etc., and what can be done to inform the social services when someone has problems. They meet at least four times a year. It's good to talk to them and I want more people to back up on the decisions that need to be made. I do not experience that we have different interests.

Many places have been used to the fact that there was little interest in the school board work,

with only a few handful parents who showed up to vote when the board was to be elected. One

leader is not surprised that there are traditionally so few parents who want to vote (his current

board was chosen by 13 parents who showed up to participate in the election) when there has

been no tradition for the school board to do nothing but nod to everything that came from the

school leader. But now he has actively sought out some good people from the town and made

them run for the board, including two from Piareersarfik. He regards it "a strategic connection"

and explains that it is important to use as many advisors as possible.

Though it is difficult to see how the school boards play the active role that the Primary School Act

has empowered them to, where they are supposed to "approve plans" and "set guidelines", the

interviews show that they, in many places, work in a completely different way, namely partly by

bringing ideas and critical questions, partly by becoming a link or ambassadors in the relationship

between school and parents as discussed in section 6.5.

Among the interviewed school leaders, there is no one who considers the school board as some-

thing negative or cumbersome, but these attitudes are allegedly found - cf. the quoted head of

administration.


The questionnaire survey among the school leaders also gives an indication of the importance of

the school boards. A quarter of the leaders believe that the school board plays an active role in

the management of the school.

Table 41

To what extent does the current school board play an active role in the management of

the school?



To a great extent 5 6 11

To some extent 9 9 18

To a lesser extent 4 6 10

Not at all 1 4 5

Total 19 25 44

Source: EVA, questionnaire survey for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school, 2014. Table Report, sec-

tion 1.5, table 33.

From the above table it appears that 5 of the town school leaders and 6 of the village school

leaders estimate that the school board plays a significant role in the management of the school. 9

of the town school leaders and 9 of the village school leaders estimate that the current school

board to some extent plays role, while 4 of the town school leaders and 6 of the village school

leaders believe that is the case to a lesser extent. Finally, one of the town school leaders and 4 of

the village school leaders consider that the school board does not play an active role in the man-

agement of the school at all. Overall, the figures show that three quarters of the school leaders

consider that the school board does not play an active role in the management of the school.

8.8 The School Administrations - Assessment The overall impression is that the municipalities contribute little to the content and pedagogical management and development of the school, which is otherwise provided in the manner in

which the school act is intended. The fact that this is the case is linked to the resources allocated

to the education authorities - at least in the three municipalities that only have one to two em-

ployees to operate the entire school area. However, it is interesting that there are not many

within the system - neither leaders, teachers, administration staff nor KANUKOKA - who are call-

ing for the municipalities to assume this task.

It is clear that the municipalities (and school boards) have not taken on the task of creating a local

content of the local electives, and that is why the overall subject objectives and the indicative

teaching plan are followed. When some school leaders believe that there are locally defined

teaching plans, it must be a misunderstanding. That the municipalities have not taken local elec-

tives to heart- and made them local - are hardly due to lack of interest, but rather that the admin-

istrative authorities are having difficulty getting the design to make sense. Several - both in the

administrations and among the teachers - also mention that the introduction of local electives has

in fact meant a down prioritisation of the practical-musical subjects.

There are some school leaders who think that their municipality supervises the school, even

though the administration does not think that is the case. This may be because it is not particu-

larly clear what is meant by supervision, which is not surprising as it is very far from taking place

systematically and regularly. The administrations, at least in the three municipalities in the south,

central and north, acknowledge that the supervision is at a place between deficient and non-ex-

istent, and it is unfortunate. It is not possible to carry out a supervision that meets the require-

ments of the law through written reports and what may arise from complaints. But it is obviously

difficult in practical terms to implement supervision with the sparse staffing of the administra-

tions.

Only about half of the school leaders in the survey receive feedback from the municipality on

their reports, and even fewer use the feedback they receive for school development. It also shows

that the "feedback mechanisms" from municipality to school are inadequate.


When the reports from the municipalities show that there is no overview of how many children

do not comply with compulsory education, and only PPR employees are able to explain the prob-

lem, it indicates an overlooked area that the administrations should pay more attention to. Alt-

hough the majority of school leaders believe to know if there are children who should go to

school, but who do not, it is obviously not an information they pass on to anyone. The admin-

istration does not demand it, even though it is its responsibility. Consequently, no efforts will be

made for the children concerned.

The Primary School Act provides that the school boards must play an active role in the field be-

tween the municipality and the school leader and be very involved in decisions about the school's

core tasks - organising teaching, teaching plan, experimental and development work, etc. Much

suggests that the school boards have not (yet) succeeded in taking on these tasks, and they have

therefore largely served as rubber stamps for the leaders. The school boards have been difficult to

recruit members for, and it has probably become a vicious circle that their duties have been unin-

teresting because nothing has been delegated to them, and so the parents have not found it to

be an interesting forum to participate in, whereupon the municipalities have assessed that they

were unable to handle a more demanding task.

New generations, however, are on their way to the boards and take a more active part in the

work - just a little different angle than the law provides for, namely as a kind of critical sparring

partners and ambassadors, i.e., a kind of link between the school and the parents. Given the fact

that cooperation with the parents, or rather the lack of cooperation, takes up so much in the eve-

ryday life of the schools, it seems to be a very exciting development which can prove to be a very

welcome lever for the school-home cooperation.


9 Other Themes

In the project description for the evaluation, there are a number of themes that the evaluation

had to highlight but failed to obtain sufficient data to enable an actual assessment to be made.

This chapter describes these topics, explaining why some of the collected data is not useful, but

the useful data there is, will be reviewed.

9.1 Teacher Competences and Competence Development It has been a wish that the evaluation should identify the teachers' competences (in the form of

subject-related education) and competence development (in the form of participation in courses

and further education), assuming that students get better education if their teachers have re-

ceived subject-related training or have relevant continuing education.

It has always been a challenge to get the primary school staffed with qualified teachers because

of the geographical and demographic conditions of the country. Although the coverage of edu-

cated Greenlandic teachers has become much better in recent years, it is still difficult to attract

trained teachers, especially in the village areas and in the districts, and it is difficult to cover all

lessons with teachers with subject-related skills.

In order to illuminate the coverage with subject-related skilled, the school leaders were asked in

the questionnaire about how many lessons were read in each subject per week at their school

and how many of these lessons were read by teachers who can teach Greenlandic and teachers

who cannot respectively - and both groups split up in those with subject-related skills and those

with no subject-related skills. However, the answers showed that at least some of the leaders had

stated lessons that could not be realistic. For example, some found that there were less than 10

Greenlandic lessons throughout the school during a week while others wrote more than 1,000.

(As a benchmark for the realistic one it can be said that in a school with ten classes it will proba-

bly be a figure near 50 lessons a week). In addition, only 28 out of the 45 school leaders in the

survey had answered. EVA therefore considers that this information is too uncertain and we must

note that if the question is to be investigated properly, data must be collected differently.

In addition, the school leaders have been asked a number of questions about what they do to

upgrade their teachers' skills.

• 6 town school leaders (32%) and 4 village school leaders (15%) believe that they do an extra

effort to get more educated Greenlandic teachers to the school. They do so, among other

things, by encouraging teachers whom they know or good teachers to apply, by trying to hold

on to those they have, by being a particularly attractive workplace and by encouraging and

supporting the untrained Greenlandic teachers in getting educated (Table Report, section 1.9,

tables 66-67).

• 13 town school leaders (68%) and 10 village school leaders (43%) use resources to support

Danish teachers learning Greenlandic (Table Report, section 1.9, table 68).

• In the school year 2013/14, 1 out of 19 town school leaders (5%) and 3 out of 26 village

school leaders (12%) have used teachers from other schools to teach at least two weeks in

subjects or subject areas that the school's own teachers do not have competence in (Table Re-

port, section 1.9, table 69).

In the questionnaire of the school leaders we have tried to get an overall overview of the teach-

ing staff's competence development by asking how many teachers at the school have partici-

pated in all the current forms of competence development. However, the answers to these first


ones do not even make sense (in many places, the numbers are for example more than 100% of

the teachers) and common to all categories is that only a small part of the school leaders have

filled in the form here. The answers are unfortunately not usable (Table Report, section 1.9, ta-

bles 70-74).

The Table Report's tables 75-79 provide an insight into how the school leaders plan the compe-

tence development of the teachers. It follows that:

• The leaders primarily identify the need for competence development through on-going dia-logue with the teachers. According to at least 12 of the town school leaders (63%) and 14

village school leaders (58%). 14 town school leaders also use personal development talks for

this (74%), whereas this only applies to 7 village school leaders (29%). Some town school

leaders also use team development talks (8, equivalent to 42%, against 3 (13%) in the vil-

lages). 8 town school leaders (42%) use observation of the individual teacher's teaching to

identify competence development needs, and 7 village teachers (24%) also use this method.

Two and three town and village school leaders respectively use input from the municipality to

identify needs (Table Report, section 1.9, table 75).

• 8 town school leaders (42%) have a written plan for the teachers' competence development,

while 3 (16%) have a plan that has not been written down. 8 (42%) assess the needs on a

continuous basis. The corresponding figures for the village school leaders are 4% with a writ-

ten plan, 48% having a non-written plan, and 48% who assess the needs on a continuous

basis (Table Report, section 1.9, table 76).

The table below shows that Inerisaavik and Ilinniarfissuaq play a major role as inspirators for lead-

ers when they consider the options for the teachers' competence development:

Table 42

Where do you find inspiration for places with options for competence development of

the teachers?

Town School

(N = 19)

Village School

(N = 26)

Total

(N = 45)

From Inerisaavik (website or course catalogue) 17 15 32

From Ilinniarfissuaq (website or course catalogue) 15 12 27

From the employees 13 13 26

From my management network 10 11 21

From evaluations and studies 8 8 16

From the municipality 5 6 11

From research results 4 4 8

From the unions/professional journals 5 2 7

Other 3 2 5

From the Government 1 3 4

From Danish educational institutes or course providers (web-

site or course catalogue)

1 1 2

Source: EVA, questionnaire survey for school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school, 2014. Table Report, sec-

tion 1.9, table 77.

Note: Respondents were given the opportunity to submit up to three answers to this question.

The table shows that 17 out of town school leaders receive inspiration from Inerisaavik and 15

from Ilinniarfissuaq. The numbers are a bit lower for the village school leaders, but it is still the

two main sources of inspiration - along with the employees that 13 of the town school leaders

and 13 of the village school leaders receive inspiration from. Other important sources are "my

management network" (10 and 11 leaders respectively) and evaluations and studies (8 and 8 re-

spectively). The municipality and the unions also play a certain role in this context.


The leaders have also been asked on what background, typically, collective competence develop-

ment is initiated, i.e. where a larger group of teachers or the entire teaching staff are on a joint

course. This occurs either in a dialogue between employees and management or in discussions

within the management team. The interesting thing here is that the municipal areas of action

play a very small part (two town school leaders and four village school leaders have pointed them

out as the background for the initiatives), as well as it is never (only one village school leader) the

school board that is the initiator (Table Report, section 1.9, table 79).

9.1.1 The Use of the Institute of Learning for the Competence Development of the

Teachers

Institute of Learning (Ilinniarfissuaq/Inerisaavik) must offer the schools relevant continuing educa-

tion for the teachers, and the evaluation therefore looks at the extent to which the schools use it

and how they assess it. About half of the schools have taken advantage of the offer, which they

predominantly have been satisfied with.

10 town school leaders (53%) and 8 village school leaders (31%) respond to the fact that they

use the Institute of Learning for "competence development of the employees or for the develop-

ment of the school as a whole" (Table Report, section 1.9, table 80). Of these, almost all used

courses, and approx. half have used written materials (books or websites) (Table Report, section

1.9, table 81). Now we get to some very small numbers (a total of 10 answers), but of those who

have used courses or written material, everybody agrees that it has been good or mostly good in

terms of relevance and academic content (Table Report section 1.9, table 83).

Finally, the leaders have been asked to what extent they perceive being able to influence the sup-ply of materials and courses from the Institute of Learning. To this, 2 leaders (4%) answer "To a

great extent", 16 leaders (36%) "To some extent", 18 leaders (40%) "To a lesser extent" and 9

leaders (20%) respond "Not at all" (Table Report, section 1.9, table 86). It has not been investi-

gated whether the leaders are dissatisfied with this or whether they are different from their ex-

pectations. But if it is the intention that the leaders should have the opportunity to influence the

selection, the figures show that it does not quite work like this today.

From Inerisaavik's point of view - as expressed during the interview with the subject area consult-

ants - the challenge is that they are not be used enough. A consultant says:

It is a challenge to reach the teachers. Some use us a lot, others - and that's the majority - never use us. We also have professional forums at Attat and the journal PI. It is problematic that so few use us.

Another consultant report that they have made some educational afternoons for teachers locally

in Nuuk. Many sign up for it, but there are only a few who turn up. The consultants also point

out that many teachers say that they are not allowed to use what they learn at courses, and what

is effective is observing the individual teacher's teaching and conversation / coaching based on it.

A leader says completely in line with this:

We hold courses for teachers. They attend courses every year. One billion courses are held, but very little of it is settled, and it is even less that actually leads to changed practices or new habits. So when I'm inside and observing and afterwards giving advice and guidance, I'm very concrete. (...) Competence development, it will be on a micro level. Later, I hope that it will be on a macro level, but I have to start somewhere.

Considering how expensive it is to provide courses in Greenland because of the high transport

and accommodation costs, it seems advisable to consider moving further - using resources to en-

able leaders to carry out observations and coaching locally, supported by materials, films, discus-

sion papers, etc. The leaders also know their teachers and can far better, than a common course,

frame the individual's prerequisites and include the processes into a coherent whole for the

school. This, of course, applies only to the competence development that deals with pedagogy,


class management, etc. But when it comes to the academic courses, one might consider mobilis-

ing and supporting the subject area groups at the schools in joint efforts that would also benefit

the local cooperation.

9.2 Teaching Materials and IT There are three focal areas here: Does Ilinniusiorfik deliver the materials the teachers need and

are the teachers really in need of materials? In addition, there is an interest in whether IT is used

in the teaching.

Almost three quarters of the teachers in the questionnaire survey believe that the teaching mate-rials from Ilinniusiorfik are good (27%) or mostly good (53%). The other teachers believe that they are mostly less good (15%) or less good (6%) (Table Report, section 2.6, table 33). There are no significant differences in how town and village teachers or educated and non-edu-cated teachers evaluate the materials. The interviewed teachers are broadly satisfied with the available materials, but:

• Several mention that there is no Danish material to suit the students' real level in the senior

classes. The material is too difficult (and what's easier is too childish).

• The same is true in English.

• At some of the small or smaller schools, there is a lack of classrooms for local electives.

• Several special class teachers think they lack materials for special education in Greenlandic,

and one mentions mathematics.

• One teacher points out that it would be nice if all books were sent to the schools in one copy

so that you could see the material in its entirety and did not have to order based on a few in-

formation on a list.

9.2.1 IT in the Teaching

The Primary School Act's §10, paragraph 3, says: "In teaching in all subjects and in subject areas,

IT is part of and a tool in the teaching." There is nothing about how often it should take place.

13% of the teachers do it - according to the questionnaire survey - daily and 33% at least every

week. 25% use computers in teaching at least once a month, but 28% of teachers respond that

they use computers less often than each month.

Table 43

How often do you use computers (without using the internet) in teaching?



Daily 15 % 6 % 13 %

At least once a week 33 % 35 % 33 %

At least every month 25 % 25 % 25 %

Less often than every month 27 % 33 % 28 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %


school in school year 2013/2014. Table Report, section 2.7, table 35.

The numbers for how often teachers use the internet in the teaching are not significantly differ-ent than the numbers for how often they use computer (Table Report, section 2.7, table 36). There is interestingly no significant difference in how often town and village school teachers say they use IT in teaching, although in many places the internet is worse in the villages (among other things, many village school teachers allegedly had technical problems answering the question-naire survey via the internet).

Whether the numbers for how often teachers use IT in the teaching are high or low is difficult to assess when you have nothing to assess it by. But 93% of the teachers in the questionnaire sur-vey respond that they would like to use IT more in the teaching. The 93% are 94% of town school leaders and 86% of village school teachers (Table Report, section 2.7, table 37). These teachers have then been asked what prevents them from using IT more, and about half (56%)


respond that the school do not have (usable) computers or iPads. For 45% of town school teach-ers and 30% of village school teachers, it is a practical obstacle that the school does not have enough computer power on the network, and 43% and 59%, respectively, point out that there is no sufficient network connection. Then other technical issues, lack of programmes, etc. Only 12% of the teachers say it is their own lack of knowledge that prevents them from using IT more.

Table 44

What prevents you from using more IT in the classroom?

Town School

(N = 209)

Village School

(N = 44)

Total

(N = 253)

The school lacks (usable) computers or iPads 56 % 59 % 56 %

The school lacks a (sufficient) internet connection 43 % 59 % 45 %

The school does not have enough computer power on the network 45 % 30 % 42 %

There are blockages on many teaching-relevant websites 39 % 25 % 36 %

The school does not have the relevant programmes 31 % 36 % 32 %

It is difficult to get support in case of problems 28 % 48 % 32 %

I don’t have the proper knowledge 13 % 9 % 12 %

It is too expensive 11 % 11 % 11 %

I do not think there are any useful programmes / websites 10 % 14 % 10 %




Note: This question is only asked for the part of the respondents who answered "Yes," to the question "Would

you would like to use IT more in the classroom."

IT used in the teaching, Akunnaaq

9.3 Teaching Foreign Languages – Danish and English The evaluation also had to look at how the teaching in foreign languages addresses the skills the

teachers have in the subjects, etc. As described in section 3.2.2 (Are the learning objectives realis-

tic?), Do both leaders and teachers believe that the learning objectives are more difficult to

achieve in the two foreign languages than in the other subjects? Here we will look more closely

at the teachers’ angle on it.


9.3.1 Teaching Danish

116 teachers in the questionnaire survey taught Danish in the school year 2013/14 in ordinary

classes where the students have Greenlandic as their mother tongue. Distributed among 94

teachers in town schools and 22 in village schools (Table Report, section 2.2, table 6).

Looking at these teachers' own linguistic background, 60% of Danish teachers in town schools

had Greenlandic as their mother tongue, 20% had Greenlandic and Danish, 18% had Danish,

and one teacher had another language as a native language. Of the 22 Danish teachers in the

village schools, 12 had Greenlandic as their mother tongue, 8 had Danish, 2 had both languages,

and one teacher had another language (Table Report, section 2.2, table 7).

Overall, 33% of Danish teachers in the town schools were educated in Danish as a foreign lan-

guage (e.g. as main subject at the college, diploma courses or equivalent). 18% of Danish teach-

ers in the village schools - i.e. 4 out of the 22 - had it (Table Report, section 2.2, table 8).

In an attempt to identify the teachers' ability to meet the students' often very different prerequi-

sites in Danish, they have been asked how often their classes have been divided during Danish

lessons. The answers are distributed as follows:

Table 45

How often was the class divided according to the students' prerequisites and needs in

the Danish lessons you taught in the school year 2013/2014?

Town School

(N = 91)

Village School

(N = 22)

Total

(N = 113)

Always 10 % 0 % 8 %

In some of the Danish lessons every week 13 % 18 % 14 %

In all Danish lessons in periods 4 % 5 % 4 %

It varies 41 % 27 % 38 %

Never 32 % 50 % 35 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %



Note: This question is only asked for the part of the respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Do you

teach in Danish in ordinary classes where students are children who have Greenlandic as their native language?"

As indicated in section 3.2.2 on learning objectives, only 41% of the town school teachers and

35% of village school teacher - according to the questionnaire survey - believe that the learning

objectives in Danish are realistic to reach for 80% of the students (Table Report, section 2.2, table

10). Those, who have answered that they do not believe the learning objectives are realistic, have

been asked to give their bids on what is needed for students to reach the learning objectives. The

figures are so small that they are merged for town and village school teachers:

Table 46

What do you think is necessary for the students to reach the learning objectives in

Danish?

Town and Village Schools (N = 53)

Greater involvement from the parents 85 %

Greater effort from the students 79 %

Upgrading of the teachers 60 %

Division into levels 60 %

Fewer students/ divisions into smaller groups of students 36 %

More lessons in the subject 32 %

Continues on the next page...


... continued from previous page


Less requirements for written correctness 21 %

Less requirements for written communication skills 17 %

Less reading literacy requirements 11 %

Less requirements for oral proficiency 9 %

Other 6 %



Note: Respondents were given the opportunity to submit more answers to this question.


teach Danish in ordinary classes where the students are children who have Greenlandic as their native language?"

and "No" to the question "Do you think it is realistic to reach the learning objectives in Danish for 80% of the stu-

dents?

The largest proportion of teachers - 85 and 79%, respectively - believe that it is the parents and

the students who need to make greater efforts if more students are to reach the learning objec-

tives in Danish. 60% believe it requires upgrading of teachers. An equally high percentage indi-

cates that level distribution would be appropriate. Then there is a drop to "Fewer students / divi-

sion into smaller groups of students", which 36% of the teachers think would be useful, and

32% who think there should be more lessons in the subject. All responses relating to reducing

the requirements of the learning objectives are supported by 9 and 21% of the teachers. Even

though several have pointed out that the learning objectives are formulated as requirements for

native speakers (see section 3.2.2), there is a minority of teachers who think they should be less

demanding. Moreover, it is striking that there are several who believe that it is the parents and

the students themselves to show greater engagement or to perform greater efforts than indicat-

ing teachers' qualifications, although only 33% of town school teachers and 18 % of village

school teachers in the study are educated in teaching Danish as a foreign language (Table Report,

section 2.2, table 8).

9.3.2 Teaching English

76 of the teachers in the questionnaire survey teach English. Of these, there are 59 teachers in

town schools and 17 in village schools (Table Report, section 2.3, table 12).

30 out of 59, who have answered that they teach English at the town schools, are educated in

teaching English as a foreign language, for example as a main subject at the college, diploma

courses or equivalent. The same applies to 5 out of the 17 village school teachers in English (Ta-

ble Report, section 2.3, table 13). 32% of the teachers always or regularly divide the students ac-

cording to prerequisites or needs in their English classes, 38% never do so. 30% respond that it

varies (Table Report, section 2.3, table 14).

Some of the teachers, because they do not speak Greenlandic themselves, have to teach English

through Danish as a language of instruction, but it may also be something that the Greenlandic

teacher can resort to partly because the teaching materials are Danish, partly because Danish and

English look like each other much more in construction than Greenlandic and English do, so it is

easier to translate word for word between Danish and English. Some, on the other hand, try to

avoid the students having to relate to three different languages at one time, so it is interesting to

look at how teachers handle it. On the question of how much of the time they use Danish as lan-

guage of instruction in the English lessons, they respond as shown in the table on the next page:


Table 47

How much do you use Danish as a language of instruction when you teach English?

Town Schools (N = 59)

Village Schools (N = 17) Total (N = 76)

More than 75 % of the time 8 % 12 % 9 %

50-74 % of the time 24 % 12 % 21 %

25-49 % of the time 14 % 35 % 18 %

Less than 25 % of the time 29 % 18 % 26 %

Never 25 % 24 % 25 %

Total 100 % 100 % 100 %




teach English".

25% of teachers never use Danish as language of instruction in English lessons. 26% believe they

are doing less than 25% of the time. The other half does more, of which 9% believe they do it

more than 75% of the time.

As indicated in section 3.2.2 on learning objectives, only 30% of the teachers who taught in Eng-

lish at the senior level believe that the learning objectives are realistic (Table Report, section 2.3,

table 15). The 40 teachers who answered no have been asked what they think it will take for the

students to reach the learning objectives. Their answers are as follows:

Table 48

What do you think is needed for the students to reach the learning objectives in

English?


Greater effort from the students 78 %

Greater involvement from the parents 75 %

More lessons in the subject 65 %

Division into levels 63 %

Upgrading of the teachers 55 %

Less requirements for written communication skills 25 %

Less requirements for written correctness 25 %

Fewer students/ division into smaller groups of students 23 %

Less requirements for oral proficiency 20 %

Less reading literacy requirements 18 %

Other 13 %



Note: Respondents were given the opportunity to submit more answers to this question.


teach English?" and "No" to the question "Do you think it is realistic to reach the learning objectives in English for

80% of the students?

The pattern in the answers is similar to the answer to the subject Danish: The largest proportion

of teachers, 78% and 75%, respectively, believe that it requires more effort from the students

and a greater commitment from the parents if the learning objectives are to be achieved. 65%

believe there should be more lessons in the subject, and 63% points to division into levels. 55%

believe that it requires upgrading of teachers. A slightly larger proportion than in Danish, but still

only 25% or less, think that different parts of the learning objectives need to be adjusted so that

lesser demands are placed on the students' skills.


There has been no question specifically about the teaching in foreign languages during the visits,

as there was not time for it. A closer discussion of the collected data is therefore not possible in

this connection.


10 The Receiving Schools

This evaluation has looked at how the 2002 Primary school Reform has been implemented on a

number of key issues. The focus has been on the school itself and the municipal administrations

with perspectives from the other key actors influencing how the school works - Inerisaavik, the

teacher training, KANUKOKA, the Ministry and IMAK. As a kind of outlook at the end, we let

some representatives of the schools receiving only 30% of the students who continue a youth

education, get the floor. How do they look at the students delivered to them by the primary

school?

10.1 The Receiving Schools This evaluation, as mentioned in the introduction, is not intended to evaluate student achieve-

ments, as it is already done through level tests and final tests and the analyses made by Inerisaa-

vik. However, as a sort of appendix, we believe it is relevant to let teachers and leaders from four

youth educational programmes - two GUXs and two vocational schools - give the primary school

a feedback on the students continuing education. You should be aware that, as it applies to less

than 40% of the students, we may even assume that the students mentioned below are among

the most academically strong.

If you have to take the positives first, a GUX teacher mentions that he experiences that the stu-

dents have good social skills from primary school. They help each other with the academic con-

tent and are good at arranging parties and launching things. However, it is also his impression

that some of the "helpers" may be tired of helping the others.

Another teacher says about the students in the scientific education that they are the easiest to

teach, because they know what they want.

A business school teacher says about the students in general, who are actually a small group,

specially selected group who has come through a very small needle eye (due to a lack of intern-

ships, only 35 out of 177 those who applied were enrolled in 2014) that there are "very skilled

students" in each team, but that they are too few and that there is also a "big, heavy group".

Danish

It is a common perception of all three visited GUX programs as well as the two vocational educa-

tion institutes that the students have become worse in Danish than they have were previously.

However, a group of GUX teachers believe that the students are as good as they have always

been, but that the general level may have fallen because they are constantly taking more stu-

dents. They explain that there are always three to four students in the class who do not under-

stand what we talk about. But it is also the teachers' view that they are coming along gradually.

Other teachers talk about "a big group, who are guaranteed to miss out on something".

Part of the problem is also that the students must learn many new concepts because teaching is

much more abstract than in primary school. Here, the teachers simply see a gap between the two

schools. It is also clear in history and social studies that many words and concepts are new to the

students.

One principal explains it in the way that "as long as they have a reasonable Danish knowledge, it

will probably be fine". A teacher at another school says that "if they really want to and believe in

it, they can progress well in the further (Danish) educational system afterwards."


At one vocational education programme, they have the impression that the students' knowledge

of the Danish language is, if not good, at least sufficient. The Greenlandic subject teachers help

the Danish, and all the tests are bilingual. At the other school, the teachers there are somewhat

more critical. They point out that the books that the students have to read are in Danish (and

cannot be anything else) and it is difficult for them. The students read poorly, they say.

Mathematics

Some GUX teachers point out that students cannot fulfil what they should be able to in mathe-

matics, even though their grades from primary school are otherwise good enough. At one voca-

tional school, teachers also believe that the students are not at a sufficiently high level in mathe-

matics and geometry. They have to reintroduce 9th and 10th grade materials. They share the

same view that the students' test results from primary school do not reflect their ability.

Study Skills/School Behaviour

The GUX teachers mention that the students' general study competences, note techniques, liter-

ary search skills, etc. are highly fluctuating and depend on which school they are from. They are

generally not used to doing homework.

At all three upper secondary schools, teachers and leaders say absenteeism "is a big problem!"

The same applies for missing assignments. They have the feeling that the students are not used

to it from primary school, if their parents have not kept them on track. It is frustrating and it costs

resources. At one of the schools, it is referred to as "a huge problem" with attendance discipline.

It is not uncommon for only half of the students to attend the first two lessons in the mornings.

Half of them are students who live at student halls so it is not the parents who cannot wake

them up (we do not know if the student halls leave this to the students themselves or if they help

them).

Quite similarly, the teachers at one vocational school say that the students lack discipline - "they

know their rights but not their duties" and it is not uncommon to be met with a "no, I do not

want to!" when you as a teacher give them a task. "I have to teach them to receive teaching, to

learn," one teacher says. Here too, it is mentioned that they have not learned information search-

ing at school. And here too there are problems with absence, which either means that the stu-

dents are thrown out or they are left far behind. At the other vocational school they say, how-

ever, that it is going in the right direction regarding discipline in recent years, but also "they

teach it here at the school". The school's teachers have strict rules, sanctions and "craftsmen jar-

gon", and that seems to help.

At one business school, it is the teachers' impression that the 16-year-olds who come directly

from primary school are not ready - they are too young and do not understand the importance of

education and work. The students who have been out to work first are more focused.

Socially

Many of the students have serious problems in terms of trauma or other serious mental issues,

the GUX teachers say. At both vocational schools, it is also mentioned that it is an increasing

problem that students have invisible disabilities such as dyslexia or ADHD, which the school is not

informed of when the students start.

Educational Guidance

One GUX rector points out that there has been poor educational guidance at the school with stu-

dents who cannot speak Danish at all or who are surprised that the language of instruction at

GUX is Danish. In both vocational programmes they also know about this - some of their students

are not at all aware of what it takes when they start. The teachers have the impression that

schoolchildren and education counsellors do not know anything about the craft educational pro-

grammes.


11 Applied Method

The evaluation of the Greenlandic primary school is based on a quantitative and qualitative part.

The quantitative part of the evaluation consists of two questionnaire surveys among school lead-

ers and teachers respectively at all schools. The qualitative part of the evaluation consists of inter-

views with school leaders, teachers, students and stakeholders related to the schools, focus group

interviews with parents, school observations and written statements from the four municipal ad-

ministrations. They will be described in detail in the following.

11.1 Questionnaire Surveys In the evaluation two questionnaire surveys have been conducted - one among school leaders

and one among teachers. The surveys were conducted during the period June to November

2014.

Preparation and Validation of the Questionnaire Surveys

The two questionnaires were prepared in Danish by EVA's project group based on the topics set

out in the project description of the evaluation and an elaboration / concretisation of these in co-

operation between EVA and the department. The final questionnaires were sent for hearing in

the steering committee, and in this connection some questions were added.

The questionnaire for the teachers consists of 74 closed questions where respondents had to an-

swer within a number of categories and 4 open questions where respondents could formulate

their answers. The questionnaire for the leaders consists of 94 closed and 5 open questions. Both

questionnaires are divided into themes, and both contain a number of background questions. In

addition, the questionnaire surveys are divided according to the following themes:


Table 49

Themes in the questionnaire survey for the leaders:

Themes in the questionnaire survey for the teachers:

Background questions

The school and the municipality

The school leader’s contact with the municipal ad-

ministration

Flexibility for the management

Supervision of the school

The role of the school board

The teaching

The work on objectives and evaluation

The learning objectives of the individual subject ar-

eas

The teaching staff

Psychosocial working environment – climate of co-

operation

Children with special needs

Inclusion

Supplementary teaching

PPR – Psychological Pedagogical consultancy

Cooperation with the parents

The leader and his/her competences

Education and continuing training

Teaching Danish as a foreign language

Teaching English as a foreign language

Learning objectives and level in general

Effective Teaching Principles

The teaching material from Ilinniusiorfik

IT

Interdisciplinary teaching

The work on objectives and evaluation

Level objectives, subject area objectives and learning

objectives

The students’ action plans

On-going evaluation

Application of evaluation

Final tests

Working life, mobility and replacement

Competence development

The cooperation at the school and with the manage-

ment

Cooperation with the parents

Pilot Test Both questionnaires were validated through pilot tests with a number of selected respondents. In

the following we will describe the procedure and the outcome of the pilot tests for the two sur-

veys.

As regards the questionnaire survey among school leaders, we have conducted two pilot inter-

views among school leaders associated with big village schools and interviews with one school

leader associated with a small town school and one school leader associated with a large town

school respectively; i.e. a total of four pilot interviews. The comments we have received have led

to minor corrections of question formulations and response options, because the interviewees ex-

pressed their insecurity as to how the question was understood or because they experienced lack

of response options. In addition, we chose to exclude a few questions regarding the number of

teaching lessons and competence development because they were too difficult to understand for

the respondents.

In the pilot test of the questionnaire among teachers, we have talked to three teachers, two of

whom were teachers in town schools, while one was a teacher at a village school. The pilot test

has primarily given us the opportunity to allow more answers to questions that were originally

supposed to be answered only with one answer or more response options have been formulated.

The pilot test has only been conducted in Danish, considering that the Danish and Greenlandic

questionnaires had to be completely similar, so any corrections in the Greenlandic questionnaire

would require corrections in the otherwise completed Danish questionnaire - which would then

have to be tested again.

Translation and Distribution of the Questionnaires

Before distribution, the two questionnaires were translated into Greenlandic and proofread by

two translators with a background in the school system.


To ensure a high response rate and to avoid language imbalances, we have sent questionnaires

to both school leaders and teachers electronically, allowing respondents to choose which lan-

guage they would answer in. The invitation email also included a link to a bilingual PDF version of

the questionnaire. The purpose of this was to make it possible to reduce the respondents' time

on the Internet by preparing their answers in the PDF version (the leaders had to, for example,

provide quite a few figures on the school's students and teachers) and then write the answers in

the online questionnaire when they were ready for it. How many who used the PDF file as in-

tended, we do not know, but we do know that many respondents failed to write the answers

into the online questionnaire and instead sent the filled PDF by email or mail to EVA. These an-

swers have subsequently been manually entered by an EVA evaluator. Some of these submitted

PDF files were sent without sender, which implied we could not register them in our system. This

applies to 41 of the teacher responses. This means, in principle, that we cannot rule out that one

or more of these respondents have answered the questionnaire twice. However, it seems unlikely.

Among the school leaders, 32 have answered the Danish version of the questionnaire and 13

have answered the Greenlandic. For the teachers, 191 have answered the Danish version, while

95 have answered the Greenlandic.

The mailing list for school leaders was delivered to EVA from the department and in connection

with the distribution of the questionnaire, EVA received error messages from 17 of the 78 email

addresses. In all cases, these were village schools, and we have, in agreement with the depart-

ment, attempted to send the questionnaire to them again via the leading school inspector at the

town school. There have been answers from 6 of these 17 school leaders.

The questionnaire for teachers was sent to email addresses of teachers, who were provided by

the Ministry of Education, Church, Culture and Gender Equality in Nuuk. Answering the ques-

tionnaire was possible between June and November 2014 and took about half an hour. We have

received e-mail addresses from 1,400 teachers from the Ministry, although the total population

officially according to information from KANUKOKA comprises 1,080 persons. This is because

teachers are not always deleted from the mailing list after termination of employment. The ques-

tionnaire survey was therefore sent to persons who are both outside and within the basic popula-

tion, as our basic population is only people who, at the time of the distribution of the question-

naire survey, taught at Greenlandic schools. Therefore, in order to avoid answers from people

who are not part of our population, the questionnaire contained a filter question to sort these

out. In spite of this filter issue, we cannot rule out that someone outside the population neverthe-

less has answered the questionnaire.

Reminder Procedure and Response Rates

The table below shows the final response rates for the two questionnaire surveys.

Table 50

Response Rates

Number of respondents in

the population

Number of responses Response rate

Questionnaire survey among leaders 78 45 58 %

Questionnaire survey among teachers 1080 286 26 %

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for teachers who were employed at the Greenlandic Pri-

mary school during the school year 2013/2014 and school leaders in the Greenlandic Primary school 2014. The

stated total population of teachers is based on information from the Municipal Association, who indicates that

during the school year 2013-2014 1,080 teachers were employed. The questionnaire survey, however, has been

sent to a list of 1,400 people provided by the Ministry of Education, Church, Culture and Gender Equality, but

here some of the people are no longer employed as a teacher. Therefore, the final response rate is based on the

information provided by the Municipal Association.

According to the number of school leaders, 58% of the leaders have answered the questionnaire.

The division in town schools and village schools is somewhat different, with 19 out of 24 town


school leaders corresponding to 79%, and 26 out of 54 village school leaders have answered,

which is 48%.

Another way to examine the response rate for the school leaders is to look at how many stu-

dents, the school leaders, who have responded, represent. There were in 2013/14, cf. The Pri-

mary School in Greenland, a total of 6,061 students in the town schools and 1,016 students in

the village schools. The school leaders, who have responded to the questionnaire, are the leaders

of 87% of the students of the town schools and 45% of the village schools respectively. In total,

the school leaders’ answers "cover" 80% of the students in primary school. A similar statement

cannot be made for the teachers, as we do not have information on all the questionnaires about

which school the teachers are from.

Data collection based on the questionnaire survey addressed to the school leaders has provided a

reasonable response rate, although the number of questions has been relatively extensive. For the

questionnaire survey among teachers, we have achieved a low response rate. However, we in-

clude data from responses from both teachers and school leaders in the survey, as we assess that

the non-responses is not distorted (see section on this).

Reminder Procedure

As shown in the table below, the respondents in both studies were given a small reminder once

and an insisting reminder once during the period from the surveys were initiated until they were

completed.

Table 51

Reminder Procedure

Survey

released

Small

reminder

Insisting

reminder

Survey

completed

Questionnaire survey among school leaders June 4 June 20 August 14 October 7

Questionnaire survey among teachers August 13 September 2 September 22 November 17

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute's questionnaire for teachers employed in the Greenlandic Primary school in

the school year 2013/2014 and school leaders in the Greenland Primary school 2014 respectively.

Following the remind letter, the response rate for the questionnaire survey among teachers re-

mained very low, and EVA therefore initiated some actions that intended to increase the response

rate. The following special initiatives were launched during September and October 2014:

• An article about the evaluation was brought in the nationwide online newspaper Sermitsiaq.

AG saying it was important that the teachers participated. The article was brought almost sim-

ultaneously with the release of the form in mid-August.

• A press release from the Ministry was read in the news on the radio on September 19, saying

how "imperative" it was for everyone to reply.

• Nick Nielsen, member of Naalakkersuisut for Education, Culture and Gender Equality, was

quoted on the news on the radio for a similar request a few days later.

• IMAK, the teachers' union in Greenland, sent an invitation three times to the school's shop

stewards to ask teachers to respond.

• Heads of administrations have been asked by the Ministry to appeal to the school leaders that

they must back up and encourage participation.

• At the end of October, the Department's chief inspector of schools called almost all school

leaders and asked them to encourage teachers to respond.

However, it is a minority of the answers that have come in after the many requests for participa-

tion.

It is difficult to know why there have been relatively few answers in connection with a study that

teachers can be assumed to be motivated to participate in, as it allows teachers to contribute

their views on matters of importance to their own work. One explanation could be that it is a

questionnaire with a relatively large number of questions and that they have not managed to

complete the responses. In addition, some of the non-response rate may be due to the fact that

some of the e-mail addresses that EVA has received from the Ministry are attached to the


school's intranet system Attat, which is not used by all teachers regularly. For this reason, it has

been important to inform about the survey through other channels to inform the teachers that

they had received the questionnaire. Among the people, who have received the mail and who

have read it, there may be some who have not been able to open the questionnaire due to tech-

nical difficulties with the link. If you have a high level of security in your browser, it will not be

possible to click on an active link. This too, however, tried catered for in the form of technical as-

sistance from the Ministry. The explanation for the low response rate in connection with the

teacher survey can therefore be explained by different reasons without knowing how much it is

the result of one and the other.

It has been a challenge to send the questionnaire to teachers who did not necessarily have a

computer on their own, it has not been so challenging when asking school leaders to fill in a

questionnaire with relatively many questions.

Non-Response Rate

In addition to the response rates of the two questionnaire surveys, we have, as a further check of

data quality, carried out non-response analyses to investigate whether the data provide a repre-

sentative picture of the challenges faced by leaders and teachers in Greenland.

Non-Response Rate among Leaders In order to control the non-response rate among school leaders we have tested the analysis com-

mittee (i.e. the incoming answers) in relation to the total population. We have assessed that it is

important to check for imbalances on the following parameters: municipality, region, school type

and school size, because differences in these parameters may be of great importance to the prac-

tice of the school. We expect that the differences in the answers mostly will be linked to these

variables because they can be seen as indicators of major structural differences for the school ad-

ministration.


Table 52

Non-response analysis, questionnaire survey among school leaders

Share

(Population)

Share

(Respondents)

Municipality

Kujalleq 15 % (N = 12) 20 % (N = 9)

Qeqqata 13 % (N = 10) 11 % (N = 5)

Qaasuitsup 51 % (N = 40) 38 % (N = 17)

Sermersooq 21 % (N = 16) 31 % (N = 14)

Total 100 % (N = 78) 100 % (N = 45)

Region

Disco Bay 23 % (N = 18) 22 % (N = 10)

South 15 % (N = 12) 20 % (N = 9)

Nuuk 12 % (N = 9) 18 % (N = 8)

North 28 % (N = 22) 16 % (N = 7)

East 9 % (N = 7) 13 % (N = 6)

Central 13 % (N = 10) 11 % (N = 5)

Total 100 % (N = 78) 100 % (N = 45)

Type of school

Town school 31 % (N = 24) 42 % (N = 19)

Village school 69 % (N = 54) 58 % (N = 26)

Total 100 % (N = 78) 100 % (N = 45)

Size of school

A (200 students or above) 23 % (N = 18) 31 % (N = 14)

B (90-199 students) 8 % (N = 6) 11 % (N = 5)

C (40-89 students) 10 % (N = 8) 9 % (N = 4)

D (1-39 students) 59 % (N = 46) 49 % (N = 22)

Total 100 % (N = 78) 100 % (N = 45)

As seen from the above table, there is an overrepresentation of leaders from the municipalities

Kujalleq and Sermersooq in our survey, as compared to how many leaders there are in total in

these municipalities. This also implies that the regions South, Nuuk and East are also overrepre-

sented, while North in particular is underrepresented (12 percentage points). With regard to

school type, there is an overrepresentation of leaders from town schools in our survey of 11 per-

centage points, which also indicates that there is an overrepresentation of the large schools (Cat-

egories A and B). However, the non-response analysis based on the above four criteria shows

that none of these differences are significant, and the questionnaire survey among school leaders

is therefore not marked by distorted non-response.

Non-Response Rate among Teachers Due to the previously mentioned challenges with the mailing lists used in the questionnaire sur-

vey among teachers, we are unable to test the non-response rate in the incoming answers

against the total population, as was done among the school leaders. Therefore, instead, we base

this alternative non-response rate analysis on a comparison with registry data on the overall

teaching staff in Greenland from Greenland Statistics and Inerisaavik. The results of the non-re-

sponse analysis must therefore be read with this reservation in mind.


Table 53

Non-response rate analysis, questionnaire survey among teachers

Share

(Register data)

Share

(Respondents)

Sex Ratio

Male 27 % (N =243) 32 % (N = 90)

Female 73 % (N =674) 68 % (N = 192)

Total 100 % (N =917) 100 % (N = 282)

Region

Disco Bay 21 % (N =230) 22 % (N = 63)

Nuuk 27 % (N =289) 28 % (N = 78)

North 14 % (N =146) 17 % (N = 49)

Central 16 % (N =177) 12 % (N = 35)

South 13 % (N =137) 13 % (N = 36)

East 9 % (N =101) 8 % (N = 23)

Total 100 % (N =1080) 100 % (N = 284)

Language/Education

Can teach in Greenlandic/ Educated

in Greenland 2

65 % (N =637) 73 % (N = 206)

Cannot teach in Greenlandic/ Edu-

cated in Denmark 2

13 % (N =130) 11 % (N = 32)

Untrained teachers 22 % (N =212) 16 % (N = 46)

Total 100 % (N =979) 100 % (N = 284)

Type of School

Town school 77 % 81 % (N = 230)

Village school 23 % 19 % (N = 54)

Total 100 % 100 % (N = 284)

Source: The Danish Evaluation Institute’s questionnaire survey for teachers who were employed in the Greenlandic

Primary school in the school year 2013/2014.

Note: In the register of Greenland Statistics, data contains two columns, "category" and "staff group", both of

which contain information about whether an employee is a teacher or if the person fulfils another function. In

some cases, an individual may be described with a teacher function in one column and not in the other. For exam-

ple, the person can be described as "teacher" in the category and "trainee" in the staff group. We have defined

the population by means of each individual being described as a teacher, for example as preschool teacher, class

teacher or teacher student in at least one of these columns and at the same time not being described as "school

inspector", "school leader" or "deputy head" so that the person can be assumed not to fill a managerial function.

Note 2: The Primary school in Greenland 2013/14 (Inerisaavik 2014) shows how many teachers can teach Green-

landic and in Greenlandic and who cannot, as well as the number of temporarily engaged teachers. There has not

been asked in the same manner in the questionnaire survey, so we compare these figures with how many have a

Greenlandic teacher training, Danish teacher training or no teacher training, although we are aware that there is

not necessarily a complete coincidence between these categories.

As shown in the table above, there is a small overrepresentation of men in our questionnaire sur-

vey among teachers compared to the proportion of men among all teachers in Greenland. Look-

ing at the distribution of regions, one finds that the imbalances are relatively small with a smaller

overrepresentation of people from Nuuk and a slight underrepresentation of people from Central

Greenland. With regard to education, there is an overrepresentation in the questionnaire survey

of people with Greenlandic teacher training (with the extra reservation that there is not neces-

sarily a coincidence between language and educational institute) and in terms of urbanity there is

overrepresentation of people from the towns. However, these differences between register data

and respondents in the questionnaire survey among teachers are not statistically significant, and

therefore it is not a definite incorrect non-response rate.


Data Analysis

All the submitted survey responses have been processed in Danish. In connection with some

questions, the respondent was given the opportunity to elaborate on his/her answer with free

text, and in cases where the respondent has answered in Greenlandic, the answer is translated to

Danish before the analysis itself.

The analysis of the incoming data from the two questionnaire surveys is primarily cross-tables be-

tween all the questions in the two studies and with the school type variable. This variable indi-

cates whether the leader or teacher answering is associated with a town school or a village

school. These tables are presented in the first two chapters of the Table Report, showing all ques-

tions of the two questionnaires. In addition, cross-tables have been made between selected ques-

tions, which the project team has found particularly relevant. These are set as the starting point

of the report, but will in some places just be discussed and are not displayed in a table. In these

cases, please go to chapter 3 of the Table Report, where all significant crosses that are mentioned

but which do not appear in the report can be found.

The chi square test has been used to determine if there is a statistically significant correlation be-

tween the variables in the cross tables. In this connedction, a significance level of 0.05 has been

used, a limit of at least 80% cells with an expected value of at least 5, and a limit of the mini-

mum allowed expected value of 1.

With regard to the open questions in the questionnaire, analysis has also been made consisting

of counts, calculations and categorisations of the figures and the text, the respondents have pro-

vided in the open answer categories of the surveys, respectively.

11.2 Review by the Municipalities The four administrations - i.e. the school or professional executives - have submitted a statement

consisting of answers to 34 questions on factual matters. There have been questions on the

structure of the administration, the cooperation with the schools, the existence of policies or

strategies in the area, supervision, the completion of the structure of the Primary School Act, the

efforts for children with special needs, recruitment of teachers and parenting. The answers have

all been followed up with interviews with the heads of the school and in three of the municipali-

ties also an employee.

11.3 Interviews According to the assignment, we have visited 12 schools throughout Greenland. The schools

were selected by EVA in cooperation with the consultant in the Ministry who helped to organise

the trips in order to represent more aspects. The aspects we have chosen from schools are:

• The four municipalities had to be represented

• Qaanaaq and the East Coast had to be represented

• Both schools in big towns (6), small towns (3), big villages (1) and small villages (2) had to be

represented.

Why we have attempted to achieve dissemination with regard to these aspects is due to the fact

that they can be expected to affect the terms and practices of the schools and that we aim for a

breadth in the data material in this way.

The visit to each school consisted of:

• Interview with school leader (in some cases with the deputy head).

• Interview with a group of teachers with representatives of all three levels (at the village

schools all teachers) and both Danish and Greenlandic teachers, if there were Danish teachers

at the school.

• Observation of a teaching lesson. Overall, lessons were observed at junior, intermediate and

senior levels, both at the beginning and end of the school day.

• Interview with the teacher who had taught the lesson observed.

• Interview with a group of students from the observed lesson if the class was at senior level.


In the four municipalities, the following interviews were conducted:

• Interview with the head and consultant of the school administration (in Qaasuitsup Municipal-

ity however, only the head)

• Interview with head and in some cases consultant at PPR

• Focus group interviews with parents.

The following stakeholders and key actors from the outside world have been interviewed:

• Rector at GUX in Nuuk

• Rector and teachers at linguistics and natural sciences at GUX in Aasiaat

• Leader and teacher at Teknikkimik Ilinniarfik in Sisimiut, representing both vocational educa-

tion and GUX

• Leader and teachers from all courses of educational programmes at Teknikkimik Ilinniarfik in

Nuuk

• Inerisaavik’s subject advisers, Nuuk

• Inerisaavik’s evaluation department, Nuuk

• Institute of Learning – the management, Nuuk

• Ilinniarfissuaq – focus group with educators, Nuuk

• Chair of the teachers’ union, IMAK, Sivso Dorph, Nuuk (interviewed in Copenhagen)

• Senior consultant in the Municipal Councils, KANUKOKA, Simon Lennert, Nuuk

• Head of Department Mikael Kristensen, Head of Division Karl Kristian Olsen and Education In-

spector Kaali Olsen, IIKNN, Nuuk.

Compared to the original plan, the following changes have been made:

• Due to bad weather, the visit to a village had to be cancelled, but one more small town school

has been visited.

• EVA has held the four scheduled parent meetings, but with a fairly sparing attendance. On

the other hand, an additional meeting was held with two parents (school board members) in

Qaanaaq.

• One of the student interviews did not take place, so only three were completed. On the other

hand, two lessons have been observed more than planned (in 7th and 9th grade, respec-

tively).

• EVA carried out additional meetings with Piareersaffik in two towns.

• In one of the towns, EVA did not conduct an interview with the teacher group because the

leader had asked teachers to volunteer to do so, which no one did. But the teacher whose

teaching was observed has been interviewed.

In connection with all the interviews and observations, there has been opportunity for simultane-

ous interpretation between Greenlandic and Danish. One interviewer / observer speaks both Dan-

ish and Greenlandic. The interviewees have even been able to choose which language they would

express themselves. All interviews, except those with the receiving schools, are documented with

notes during the interviews by the two interviewers and recorded.

Data Analysis

We have handled the analytical work as follows: All the notes from the interviews are written in

large forms (matrices), where the questions asked have functioned as column headings and the

individual schools or municipalities have formed the rows. For example, we have been able to see

all statements that provide perspectives on the topic of "working with learning objectives" in one

part and all statements related to a particular school (or particular municipality) in the other part.

In this way, an overview of the answers given is created.

We have then used the matrix to implement a systematic, thematic analysis of data grouped un-

der the same sub-question / headline: What variation can we, for example, see in the perspectives

of the interviewees and experiences with learning objectives? At this stage, we have included all

interview data, including data that can be considered as single statements, and we are interested

in the variation in data rather than who and how many express a particular viewpoint.

Short quotes in the report are written from the notes, while longer quotes are written from the

sound recordings. All notes and chapters are read by at least three consultants.


11.4 Employees The evaluation was implemented by the following employees:

Special Adviser Helene Brochmann, project manager, MA in Social Science and Eskimology.

Has worked with evaluation at EVA for 17 years. Was employed as temporarily engaged teacher

in Akunnaaq in 1988-89. Author of the book Administration in Change on the central admin-

istration of the Home Rule (co-author Bente Hamann, Atuakkiorfik 1990). Worked 3 years (1995-

1997) for The Commission on Greenland’s Judicial System doing interview and register studies in

the Greenlandic district courts and institutions resulting in three reports on the Commission's rec-

ommendations. Understands a lot and speaks a lot of Greenlandic.

Evaluation Adviser Bjarke Frydensberg, Master of Science in Administration, has been associ-

ated with EVA’s department of the primary school for two years and has focused specifically on

the chapters on the teaching and the teachers.

Evaluation Adviser Mille Katrine Petersen, Master of Science in Anthropology, is associated

with EVA’s department for youth educational programmes and has focused specifically on the

chapters on the parents and school management as well as the observations.

Deputy Director Katja Munch Thorsen, Master of Science in Sociology. Head of EVA’s primary

school department for 13 years and has previously solved tasks for Inerisaavik and IMAK. Has

been employed by the municipal school administration in Denmark.

Methodology Adviser Jacob Brauner Jørgensen, Master of Science in Sociology

Methodology Assistant Maria Havgry, Student of Science in Sociology

Evaluation Assistant Natuk Rosing Fleischer, Student of Arts

Simultaneous Interpreters: Hans Ole Petersen and Johan Rosbach, Greenland’s Self-Gov-

ernment

Translators of the questionnaire surveys to Greenlandic: Jens Jakobsen and Abia Abelsen

Translator of the report to Greenlandic: Kunuunnguaq Fleischer


11.5 Applied Materials

Legal Material

Remarks on the draft to the Parliamentary Regulation No. x of x. xxx 2001 on the Primary school,

the autumn session EM 2001/35

Parliamentary Regulation No. 8 of May 21, 2002, on the Primary school

Inatsisartut Act No. 15 of December 3, 2012, on the Primary school

Home Order Executive Order No. 16 of June 24, 2003 on level objectives, subject area objectives

and learning objectives for the subject and academic areas of the primary school.

Guide to the Home Rule Order No. 2 of 9 January 2009 on evaluation and documentation in the

primary school

From Inerisaavik - publications

The Road to Atuarfitsialak, a discussion paper, Inerisaavik 2000

Atuarfitsialak – methods and tools, Inerisaavik 2003

Atuarfitsialak pillugu/About Atuarfitsialak, a guide to parents, Inerisaavik 2004

The Primary school 2013/14, Inerisaavik 2014

From Inerisaavik’s website

inerisaavik.gl/projekter-og-fag/effektive-undervisningsprincipper/info-om-crede-samt-artikler/.

inerisaavik.gl/projekter-og-fag/effektive-undervisningsprincipper/de-7-standarder

Designing Effective Activity Centers for Diverse Learners: A Guide for Teachers at All Grade levels and for All Subject Areas, R. Soleste Hilberg, Ji-Mei Chang, Georgia Epaloose, R. William Doherty,

Ward Shimizu og Vanessa Lee.

inerisaavik.gl/fileadmin/user_upload/Inerisaavik/Trintestmappe/A22c_Retningslinjer_for_Trin-

test_2014_da.pdf.


Appendix A

Project Description According to the project description prepared by the steering committee and EVA, which under-

lies the evaluation, the following conditions had to be illuminated:

1. Organisation

• Overall/Central Level

Management of the primary school: Interaction and division of labour between the differ-

ent bodies (Self-government, municipalities and the Department of Learning), including

continuing education

The role of the Institute of Learning

Supervision of the primary school

• Municipal Level

How is supervision of the primary school conducted locally, including those who do not

attend the primary school education

School boards: Which tasks do they have, how do they function?

Schedules and distribution on subject areas and levels

Local elective: How are they prioritised, learning objectives etc.

• School Level

Level and class division

Particular focus on flexible organisation

Division into smaller groups of students: Is it used, how, according to which criteria,

static/dynamic and with which experienced effects? Where do the resources come from?

2. Organisation and Implementation of the Teaching

Various aspects are desired to be elucidated in the evaluation of the organisation and implemen-

tation of the teaching. There are various impacts.

• What teaching methods are used? Here with particular focus on the dissemination and im-

portance of "Effective Teaching Principles". And how is the profit of this experienced?

• What materials are used and the quality of these? (It is not included in the evaluation as an

independent theme, but the use of IT in the teaching can be highlighted under this theme).

• Foreign Languages: Danish and English

How is the teaching carried out- what is being taught?

How are the teachers' competences in relation to handling this teaching?

• Supplementary Teaching and Mother Tongue Teaching

Municipal guidelines and resources

How many students are affected?

The school’s handling

• Interdisciplinary teaching with particular focus on subject assignments and the project assign-

ment.

What is the collaboration about? And to what degree?

Outcomes and challenges.


• Cancellation of lessons - extent and reasons

3. The Work on Objectives and Evaluation

The work on objectives and evaluation is central to organising a teaching adapted to the individ-

ual student. A measurement is required of the work on objectives and evaluation, including an

assessment of time consumption and yield by the following elements:

• Action plans and documentation

• The use of level objectives, subject area objectives and the work on learning objectives

• On-going evaluation

What tools are used? (particular focus on Angusakka)

Are the level tests used?

• Differentiated teaching

• The final tests: How are the relevance and level perceived?

4. The Teachers

A survey of the teaching staff is required - including their formal skills. In addition, there is a de-

sire to study how competence development is being dealt with and a measurement of the work-

ing environment. The teacher training is not included as part of the evaluation, but the newly ed-

ucated teachers' meeting with practice is highlighted.

• Teacher qualifications and how they are used

Non-educated (number, seniority, background)

Mobility/stability – status and reasons

Main subjects

How do the schools handle that many teachers are not educated?

• Competence Development

What kind and how much

The range of courses – how is the relevance perceived?

How does the school work strategically with competence development (decision, choice of

courses, personal development reviews, etc.?)

• Working Environment

How is it perceived, which conditions contribute positively to the working environment,

and which challenges do the teachers and leaders experience?

Formal and informal forms of cooperation, including teamwork, level collaboration

The significance of formal tools: workplace assessment, values, written principles, personal

development reviews/management development reviews, cooperation committee etc.

• Particular Focus on the New Teachers

Their experience from their education – relevance in relation to practice

5. The Management

• Structures and Scope

Which areas of responsibility have been delegated from the administration

• The management’s competences, including the opportunity for competence development

• Tasks and organisation

Which tasks have been delegated to the head departments and on what ground?

Which tasks do the management use time on (administration, staff management, and edu-

cational management)?


6. Children with Special Needs

It is required to cover how the schools handle students with special needs, including involvement

of other agencies. It includes both special initiatives and ordinary special education.

• Measures at School Level

What common measures do schools use (development classes, AKT (behaviour, contact,

well-being) classes, vocational classes, other)? – And to what extent?

Which structures does the school have in relation to identifying and handling students with

special needs?

Involvement of other agencies (which, and what do they offer? And how is the coopera-

tion experienced by the school?)

• Inclusion

How is inclusion practiced?

How do inclusion / students with special needs affect the teachers and the other students?

• Special Education

How many resources are allocated to which groups

Teacher qualifications

• PPR – [Psychological Pedagogical Counselling]

Which tasks do PPR solve?

How do the schools experience the cooperation with PPR?

What conditions of PPR's organisation, etc., affect their task performance?

7. School-Home-Collaboration

• An illumination of the structure for and the implementation of cooperation with the parents.

• Particular focus on students who are not taught at the school.

Omissions in the Report Some of the above points have not been highlighted with the data provided by the evaluation.

These are the following topics:

Number of Lessons and Division of Subjects and Levels It was required that the evaluation look into the municipalities' allocation of lessons and distribu-

tion on subjects and levels at the individual schools. However, EVA has estimated that it would

provide a very large amount of data asking municipalities to explain this. If the evaluation had

otherwise looked at the school's academic achievements (which it does not), there could have

been a point in making a link to the allocated lessons. However, if the purpose of collecting this

data is merely to determine whether the municipalities assign the statutory lessons, it is a fairly

simple, objectively identifiable condition which does not require any interpretation to be uncov-

ered, and thus there is no particular point in having an impartial evaluation looking into it. In

other words, it is a question that the ministry itself - with authority in §37 of the Primary School

Act - may ask the municipalities for information about.

Division into Groups This issue is not adequately highlighted in the report, as it is regrettable that it became clear to

EVA too late that "division into groups" in this context is a specific term in relation to special ed-

ucation - and not just about dividing the class into smaller groups.

The Teachers’ Educational Background There is no information on the main subjects the teachers have.

In the questionnaire to the school leaders, reported in table 65 on page 33 of the Table Report,

we have asked about the main subject coverage of all school lessons, but as stated, we have not


received useful data about this, and therefore we cannot say anything about it. We have not had

the resources to conduct follow-up investigations.

In the analysis of the questionnaire survey with the teachers, we have investigated whether edu-cated teachers respond differently than non-educated and in cases where we considered it ap-

propriate we have reported it. Thus, all the places where the two groups do not respond differ-

ently are not mentioned - unless it is surprising.

The Table Report's table 8, page 66 and table 13, page 69, show the extent to which teachers

who teach Danish and English have subject-related or equivalent competences, as the project de-

scription focuses on these two subjects. It is also discussed in the report, pp. 129 ff. We do not

think there is any reason to believe that the teachers' answers to all the other questions in the

questionnaire will be influenced by whether they have their main subject in one or the other sub-

ject and it would be a painless act to try to investigate it - also considering the low response rate

in the questionnaire survey, which means you have to be careful about going too much in detail

with the figures.

Anyhow, KANUKOKA has available statistics on the individual schools' coverage with educated

teachers.

The Tasks of the Head of Departments It has not been covered what tasks the head of departments at the schools have. If so, it would

have been asked in the questionnaire for the school leaders, but it would have required a few

more questions (with many possible answers) in a very long questionnaire so it has given way to

other questions - also based on the view that no clear hypotheses were mentioned on the sub-

ject, which made it urgent to be highlighted.

The Steering Committee had also requested an explanation of the extent of home schooling of

students, but since municipalities have no information about this, we have not been able to give

such.

THE DANISH EVALUATION INSTITUT

Østbanegade 55, 3.DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø

T +45 3555 0101E [email protected] www.eva.dk

The Danish Evaluation Institute, EVA, explores and devel-ops the quality of day care centres, schools and educational programmes. We provide usable knowledge at all levels - from day care centres and schools to local governments and ministries. Read more about EVA on our website www.eva.dk.Here you can also download all EVA’s releases- Printed copies can be ordered via a bookshop.

Report and Wire-O -...

Documents

Transcript of Report and Wire-O -...