Dubai: Aisha Abdullah Miran, Director General of the Knowledge and Human Development Authority in Dubai, confirmed that the Education Cost Index will be announced by next April. She revealed a new model for monitoring Dubai’s private schools, reflecting their performance on ordinary days, while each school’s data and performance indicators determine the nature of the monitoring intervention, and the comprehensive visit may lead to a change in its overall assessment.Miran emphasised the focus on utilising artificial intelligence technologies in sorting and analysing school data and evidence, in parallel with human review, to direct oversight to areas of actual need. She explained that the final assessment may take about three months to be approved, while any increase in fees remains closely linked to the last approved inspection assessment of the school.In detail, Miran confirmed that decisions related to any increase in fees will still be based on the latest approved inspection assessment of the school, meaning that suspending the traditional inspection cycle does not negate the effect of the last assessment in the mechanisms regulating fees.She noted that the Education Cost Index has not yet been calculated and is expected to be announced by next April, in light of relevant economic data and indicators, including inflation levels and their effects.She added that the data of private schools and their actual performance indicators will determine the type of supervisory visit they are subject to, while the deadline for notifying the school of the visit may not exceed 24 hours, within the framework of the school education quality assurance system that was resumed during the current academic year after the suspension of the traditional inspection cycle for two years.Aisha Abdullah Miran, Director General of the Knowledge and Human Development Authority. Picture credit: SuppliedIn media statements, she said that the system is moving to a more flexible, data-driven oversight model, instead of subjecting schools to standardised and repeated inspection cycles. This allows for directing visits and oversight resources to schools and aspects most in need of follow-up, and gives educational institutions more space to focus on sustainable improvement and raising the quality of practices within classrooms.She stated that the authority is moving more broadly towards interventions tailored to the needs of each school, so that data identifies areas where tangible improvement can be achieved, whether it relates to the quality of teaching, leadership, the performance of a specific group of students, or a particular aspect of the educational process.She added that the visits allow for more relevant observations and recommendations that are more connected to practical reality, and enable leaders and teachers to translate quality assurance results into actionable procedures within classrooms, rather than being satisfied with a general judgment that does not directly address areas for improvement.She pointed out that the Authority is focusing on utilising artificial intelligence technologies to support the sorting and analysis of data and evidence, in parallel with human review, which enhances the system’s ability to deal with a larger volume of indicators and identify the areas and schools most in need of intervention. She added that the goal is not to increase the number of visits, but to maximise the impact of each visit, so that the specific intervention leads to the development of classroom practice, or the improvement of the experience of a group of students, or addressing a challenge in school leadership, leading to a gradual and sustainable improvement in the quality of education.She stated that the most prominent development in school inspection operations is the division of quality assurance visits into two main types, according to the nature of the follow-up and its purpose, stressing that schools do not know in advance whether the visit they will be subjected to is classified under either of them, either before the visit or during its implementation, as its type is determined based on an integrated reading of the school’s data, its performance indicators and the available evidence.She explained that the classification is determined based on a set of factors and indicators, most notably student achievement results, school leadership performance, quality of teaching and learning, training and development, student protection, and parent complaints, in addition to data and evidence that monitor the school's performance, strengths, and areas that require follow-up and improvement.She explained that the first type, the "Total Quality Assurance Visit" (QA1), involves a comprehensive evaluation of the school's performance according to the approved quality assurance framework, and its results may lead to a change in the school's overall rating. The second type, the "Quality Assurance Review Visit" (QA2), focuses on reviewing data, evidence, and indicators, monitoring the improvements achieved by the school, and tracking its progress in specific areas, without changing its existing rating. However, its results contribute to identifying areas that may later require more targeted monitoring intervention.She stressed that the updates reinforce the principle of continuous readiness throughout the academic year, so that the quality of the school is not linked to the date of the quality assurance team’s visit, but rather is an integral part of its daily practices and the performance of its leadership, teachers and students.She explained that notifying the school of the visit may be done in a short period, practically only about 24 hours, which limits the exceptional preparations associated with the inspection, and allows the teams to get a closer look at the quality of education and daily practices within the school.This means that the school will be required to maintain a level of readiness and quality throughout the year, rather than treating the inspection visit as an appointment that requires temporary arrangements, as the model aims for the visit to reflect the true performance of the institution on a normal school day.She stressed that the monitoring process does not end as soon as the visit ends and the team leaves the school, as the results go through stages of review and auditing, in addition to the procedural periods set for the school, including appeal procedures, which makes the period from the inspection to the adoption of the final evaluation reach about three months.This process aims to ensure the accuracy of the final judgment and to give schools the procedural space allocated for reviewing the results before the assessment is finalised and adopted.She stressed that the shift to the new model does not mean easing oversight or lowering quality requirements, but rather redirecting them in a more efficient and effective manner, so that each school receives the level of intervention that suits its data and needs, instead of carrying out a full inspection cycle in cases that do not warrant it.She noted that schools whose data reveals indicators that require follow-up can be subject to targeted visits that focus directly on areas needing improvement, pointing out that these indicators may include parent complaints, student protection issues, lack of school leadership, student results, or the emergence of data indicating weaknesses that require supervisory intervention.She explained that the new model gives schools whose data does not warrant comprehensive oversight more room to focus on sustainable improvement and raising the quality of educational practices within classrooms, while visits and oversight resources are directed more precisely to schools and aspects whose indicators reveal an actual need for follow-up and intervention.She stated that the model redirects monitoring processes according to the needs of each school, through an integrated reading of data, evidence and performance indicators, allowing quality assurance teams to be directed to aspects that actually require intervention, and transforming visits from a uniform periodic procedure to more accurate monitoring that is responsive to the level of performance and the path of improvement in each school.In the higher education sector, she said that the reviews conducted over the past two years aimed to support the development of university institutions and the content of their programs, and to link results and performance to nationally approved requirements and standards.She added that the reviews focus on the institution's ability to develop the content of its programs, the effectiveness of assessment tools and measuring student levels, and the extent to which courses and programs are related to employment needs and national priorities.She stressed that the true value of reviews is not measured by the issuance of the report itself, but by the ability of its recommendations to bring about tangible change within classrooms, whether in content, teaching methods, or assessment tools, which ultimately reflects on the student experience and the quality of the educational institution’s outputs.Six indicators that determine the nature of the supervisory visitAisha Miran, Director General of the Knowledge and Human Development Authority (KHDA) in Dubai, stated that six key indicators, included in the updated data entered into the system in October, help determine the nature of the supervisory visit and the level of intervention required by each school. These indicators encompass student achievement, school leadership, training, quality of teaching, learning and development, student protection, and parent complaints. She emphasised that interpreting these indicators collectively provides a more accurate picture of the school's performance and allows for supervisory visits to be tailored to its actual needs.
