In almost all the western countries, of course, self-evaluation is an expression of the desired school autonomy profilisation and the wish that schools are bound to their environment, make their own decisions, etc., They should do that in an elaborated way, and self-evaluation, of course, is one of the mechanisms for them to do that in an elaborated way. And external evaluation is more from the side of the society, so to say, to see that indeed schools are good enough, that they comply with regulations, and other reasons. Then you could say that if the self-evaluation of the school that is presented by the school in advance of an external evaluation, if that self-evaluation covers all the major indicators for quality in a reliable way and shows that the quality of the school is satisfactory or better and is stable, well indeed you could say that the external evaluation done by an external inspectorate could be satisfied by checking the self-evaluation, that is a type of meter evaluation. And my personal opinion is that in that meter evaluation there always should be a check on the reliability of the self-evaluation by a small sample of lessons, meetings and talks of external inspectors in the school. To really know that there is no window dressing, etc., if so the self-evaluation is checked, well then the inspectorate can take over the conclusions about the quality of the school that are drawn by the school itself. We in the Netherlands have, I think, a nice name for that, we call it the proportionality between the self-evaluation and the external evaluation. So to say the better the self-evaluation is in terms of procedures and stability an in terms of the quality it shows, the less full the external inspection can be done.