Changes in Quality Assurance Systems and Theoretical Models of Education Management

Rimantas Zelvys

Vilnius University, Lithuania

Introduction

The topic of quality assurance has become one of the central topics in the context of recent educational reforms, and the concept of quality has become one of the most fashionable concepts in contemporary educational terminology. However, the understanding of quality and the possible ways and means of assuring quality in education varies. One could name different structures and institutions in the system of education which are supposed to assure quality. Educational reforms world-wide, and in post-communist countries in particular, are aimed at providing better quality in education, so the previous structures and institutions are reorganized in order to achieve this aim in the best possible way. While analyzing educational reforms from the managerial point of view, we may consider these attempts from different theoretical perspectives.
It is generally acknowledged that in social sciences several differing concepts may be valid at the same time. This situation in social field is defined as ‘conceptual pluralism’ (Bolman and Deal, 1984). ‘Conceptual pluralism’ is also characteristic of education management. Various authors refer to different theoretical models of management, and both the definitions and the number of models vary. For example, Bolman and Deal (1984) point out three models, personalistic, rational and power. Sergiovanni (1984) defines four theoretical approaches: effectiveness, personal, political and cultural. Dalin (1993) refers to four theoretical perspectives: structural, political, human relations and symbolic. We think that perhaps the most thorough and elaborate classification of education management theories is presented by Bush (1995). He points out six groups of theories:

• formal
• collegiality
• subjectivity
• uncertainty
• cultural
• political.

The aim of our study is to review changes in the systems of quality assurance from several different theoretical perspectives. While doing this we rely mainly on the example of Lithuania. However, we suppose that similar processes at least to a certain extent take place in all post-communist countries. When we take into account educational systems as a whole, we consider formal, uncertainty and political models as most appropriate for our analysis (Zelvys, 1999). We assume that the use of these three different models provide better possibilities of understanding the processes which are taking place in Lithuanian education in the field of quality assurance.

The Formal Model

Formal theories are theories which treat organizations as formal systems and focus on the official structure of organizations. According to formal theories, organizations have clearly defined aims, and managerial decisions are made rationally and objectively. A variety of models can be included in a group of formal theories: structural, systemic, bureaucratic, rational, hierarchical, etc. Formal models mostly fit very centralized, authoritarian systems, and the previous Soviet system of education could be best explained in terms of formal theories. However, the present formal structure of constantly changing post-communist system of education is not so illustrative in this sense.
From the formal point of view, the system of quality assurance in education has not undergone significant changes. In the field of secondary education very few new structures aimed at assuring quality of teaching appeared. The previous institution of school inspection, whose main function was the evaluation of the work of schools with regard to conditions, processes and objectives defined by national curriculum and legal regulations, mainly remained unchanged. The major structural difference was that the function of school inspection was taken away from local educational authorities and granted to regional or county educational authorities. This reform slightly reduced the overall number of inspectors, but the contents of the work remained essentially the same, with a majority of the former inspectors just changing their working place from local to regional educational offices. The central department of Inspection in the Ministry of Education and Science was formally closed down; however, the new Department of Organization of Secondary Education was opened instead and took over a number of the functions of the former Ministry inspectors.
Another novelty in the field of quality assurance of secondary education was the establishment of the National Examination Centre. This organizes national examinations at the end of basic (8 years) and upper secondary (12 years) education. Until recently these were school-based and therefore aroused lots of discussions about subjectivity of evaluation and lack of the uniformity of standards applied in different schools. Starting from the year 1999 national exams at the end of upper secondary education will be organized by the Centre. Results of the national examination will also serve as indicators of students’ readiness for higher studies and will eventually replace the entrance exams to the institutions of higher education. According to the present regulations, though, the students have a possibility of choice. They can either take the national exams in the Centre, or they can do it locally in their schools, and, if they wish, afterwards they can take the second set of exams for entrance to the university. The national examination reform is aimed at improving the quality of education in the secondary sector and setting uniform national standards for secondary schools. However, structurally the National Examination Centre is a small unit with a limited number of permanent staff. Design, administration and marking of the examination papers will be done by temporary groups of experts, mainly by teachers who hold permanent positions in secondary schools.
Educational outcomes in secondary education are also monitored by participating in international comparative studies, such as the Mathematics and Science Studies and the Civic Education Studies.
High standards for the teaching profession are supposed to be maintained by introducing qualification requirements for initial teacher training. The Ministry of Education and Science has defined the length of pedagogical studies, the basic areas of the study programmes and the scope of the teaching practice. Institutions of higher education need to observe these requirements in order to give their students the qualification of teacher. Similar requirements for initial teacher training were also present during the Soviet times. Due to the lack of teachers in certain areas qualification requirements are not always observed while recruiting the teaching staff.
The system of teacher appraisal is aimed at maintaining the quality of teaching throughout the working career of the teachers. In order to confirm their qualifications or to get into a higher qualification category, teachers have to undergo the process of appraisal, which consists of taking courses, lesson observations, home tasks, etc. There are five teacher qualification categories in Lithuania, and a higher category gives a specific salary increase. The new system of appraisal was introduced in early 1990s, but a rather similar system existed before the fall of the communist regime. It used to be a rather formal one, and a new system was supposed to be more effective in this sense. However, critics say that not very much has changed.
In order to ensure the quality of management in education, a system of head teacher appraisal was introduced in 1993. There are three pay-related qualification categories in the appraisal scheme; head teachers and deputies are appraised by groups of experts who make site visits and observations. They also analyze the relevant school documents: yearly accounts, development plans, etc.
On the school level two major innovations were introduced in the course of the present educational reforms which deal with the problem of quality assurance. The first one is the already-mentioned system of teacher appraisal. Perhaps the main difference between the old and new systems of appraisal is that the first three qualification categories are now in fact granted on the school level. The appraisal commission is appointed from the representatives of school administration and expert teachers. They analyze lesson plans of the candidates, observe lessons and evaluate other indicators of performance. When the school-based commission decides that candidates meet the requirements of a higher qualification category, relevant documents are sent to the local educational authorities who make the final decision. The participation of local educational authorities is exclusively formal: there were no cases when decisions of school-based appraisal commissions were not approved by LEAs.
The other body of quality assurance on the school level is the school council. According to the present Lithuanian Education Act, all educational institutions must have a self-governing body. The school council is formed from equal number of representatives of teachers, parents and students. Participation of school councils in the process of quality assurance is manifested in several ways. Firstly, school councils appoint members of commissions of teacher appraisal. They also provide recommendations for principals and deputies who wish to apply for higher qualification category. Secondly, school councils approve school-based curriculum and individual working plans of teachers. The Act also enables school councils to make decisions concerning recruitment and dismissal of the school staff. In this sense school councils can have real influence on the processes of improving the quality of teaching. However, in most cases they still do not use their formal decision-making powers to a full extent.
In the field of higher education the new structure of quality assurance is the Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education. The Centre was established to co-ordinate the process of self-analysis of institutions of higher education and to organize external assessment of research and educational institutions by inviting external experts. The Centre also gives information, consultations and recommendations on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education. The staff of the Centre participate in international programmes in the field of quality assessment of higher education and recognition of qualifications. The number of permanent staff, though, is only seven persons and as a structural unit the Centre is very small. The projects of the Centre are usually carried out by university teachers and researchers, hired on a temporary basis as external experts. Both the National Examination Centre and the Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education are structural units of the Ministry of Education and Science.
Universities and other institutions of higher education have established commissions or councils which are responsible for quality of academic programmes. They have no permanent staff and include representatives from the faculties as well as from the central administration of the institution. The process of quality assurance is mainly based on the internal expertise and self-analysis of programme leaders.
The short overview of structural changes in the field of quality assurance leads as to the conclusion that the increase of formal structures is minimal and the implementation of new functions is limited. The old structures still operate the way they used to. New institutions of quality assurance have started to pursue their aims. However, it is evident that due to the limited size and range of responsibilities their overall influence on education is moderate. Commissions, councils and expert groups are created on a temporary basis and their functions are mainly consultative.

The Uncertainty Model

This model underlines the uncertainty and unpredictability of organizations. It tries to highlight the complexity and instability of institutional life. The level of uncertainty increases during periods of radical change. Followers of uncertainty theories believe that educational institutions become increasingly dependent on external influences. As a result many unplanned decisions are made. The Lithuanian system of education is undergoing a period of essential transformations, and the element of uncertainty can be traced in many educational developments. Institutions which deal with quality assurance are also affected by certain unpredictable factors. For example, establishment of the county or regional educational authorities was not foreseen in the general concept of education in Lithuania approved by the Parliament in 1992. It emerged later as a result of general administrative reform in Lithuania. Therefore the transference of inspection from local to regional level was a result of external influence and came as a response to the new administrative division of the country. It aroused certain turmoil and controversy, because it led to the previously unplanned redistribution of functions between different levels of educational administration. However, eventually it was accepted as an inevitable administrative reality.
The establishment of National Examination Centre and Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education was also determined by external circumstances. Neither institutions were named in the general concept of education in Lithuania. They emerged as a result of international co-operation and were funded by PHARE. We may argue that to a certain extent establishment of National Examination Centre and Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education was accidental: without external assistance and financial aid provided by PHARE the national authorities most probably would not have been able to establish and support them.
Another illustration of unpredictability in education is the still non-existent system of accreditation and licensing of institutions of higher education. The general concept of education claims that “the main levers of State regulation of higher education are ... the accreditation and licensing of institutions of study” (Ministry of Culture and Education of the Republic of Lithuania, 1994, p. 31). The purpose of accreditation is to evaluate the ability of institutions of higher education to grant internationally comparable and accepted qualifications and education degrees. After accreditation they are supposed to receive an appropriate licence. However, though the concept was approved in 1992, the process of accreditation has not yet started and no one knows when it will start. Contrary to the expectations of the reformers, during the last seven years not a single institution of higher education has applied for a licence. There were no new educational organizations to accredit and old institutions were not accredited because they needed no license for continuation of their activities. Recently the discussion about accreditation was revived due to the idea that institutions of higher education should be granted different categories and accreditation could act as means of differentiation. Similar ideas about accreditation of other educational institutions (e.g. schools and colleges) are also floating in the air. However, contrary to all the plans and expectations, accreditation still remains a purely theoretical possibility, not implemented in practice.
On the school level unpredictability is minimized by the centralized nature of the Lithuanian system of education. Virtually no elements of quality assurance were introduced at the school level which were not defined in the national concept of educational reform. There were, though, certain exceptions. Some schools on their own initiative started internal audits in order to show local educational authorities that they were functioning in an efficient way. Several institutions – members of the Association of Initiative Schools – introduced more sophisticated versions of school development plans. Participants of the Lithuanian-British management project tried to adopt school management standards, developed by local educational authorities in the South East of England. All these developments started as a result of external influence, either because of the pressure of local educational authorities, or due to the impetus provided by international co-operation. However, in general the number of school-based quality assurance initiatives is not high.
The overview of these manifestations of uncertainty shows that there is an element of unpredictability in the development of Lithuanian education. Several institutions of quality assurance emerged, though they were not considered in the original plans of the reformers. Some mechanisms of quality assurance, on the contrary, did not come into force, though they were planned in the general concept of education and approved by the Parliament. On the other hand, the majority of the steps in assuring quality were planned, and we may conclude that the effect of uncertainty in the development of quality assurance systems is quite moderate.

The Political Model

Political theories perceive organizations as arenas of political activity. In order to pursue their own interests, members of organizations are involved in a process of struggle. The main focus of political theories is on the distribution of power and influence among organizations and interest groups. Power is used by the different interest groups in order to achieve certain educational aims. Groups seek allies and join coalitions. Coalitions, however, are temporary and exist as far as the interests of different groups coincide. Educational leaders, therefore, have to find means of matching the interests of competing groups.
The formal model which dominated in the Soviet system of education, is now gradually losing priority, and the political model is starting to dominate. The reasons for this are quite evident. In a highly centralized system formal hierarchy was extremely important and people who were at the top of the hierarchical structure made most of the decisions. Practically all the power and influence was concentrated in a single one dominating structure, the Communist party. Educational institutions and interest groups within them had very limited possibilities of being involved in the decision-making process. Therefore a struggle for power between them made little sense.
Things have changed radically after the fall of the Communist regime. The single dominating centre of power disappeared. The new democratically-elected government partially decentralized education and delegated many powers to the institutional level. As things were changing rapidly, the functions and responsibilities of the main actors in the field of education were not very clearly defined. This was the time when political model emerged and started to gain strength. The interest groups and coalitions were formed and started the struggle for the increase of their influence.
One of the first groups which managed to organize themselves and to become the most influential force in education, was the academic community. Many distinguished professors joined the national liberation movement and eventually became members of the Parliament or occupied other important political positions. They were among the first to realize that it was the right time to gain the necessary power and to secure themselves from the possible influence of other interest groups. Therefore one of the first actions of the new political leadership was granting the autonomy to the universities. Though traditionally academic autonomy is understood mainly as the freedom of ideas, the post-communist model of university autonomy meant almost total lack of control by the Government, at the same time maintaining the full financial support for the state universities. The Ministry of Education and Science became almost powerless in the sector of higher education, and all major decisions were delegated to the Senates of the universities and to the Conference of Rectors.
Evidently, this had an enormous impact on quality assurance in higher education. The systems of quality assurance became almost internal almost without exception. Senates were introducing new study programs and approving contents of the courses; rectors were making decisions about entrance requirements and issuing doctoral diplomas after the defence of the dissertations. Only in the course of the last several years has the Ministry of Education regained some of its powers and some external expertise was initiated by the Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education and the Lithuanian Science Council. Another milestone in the battle for power and influence is the new Act on Higher Education, which is to impose greater external control on universities. Thus met with unprecedented resistance from the rectors and other influential figures of the academic world. Nevertheless, adoption of the Act of Higher Education is to take place by the end of 1999.
Another important area where institutions of higher education gained and secured their influence was with respect to entrance requirements. Universities considered the results of the Matura examination by the end of upper secondary education as unreliable and thus kept organizing their own entrance exams. Of course, it gave enormous benefits both to the institutions of higher education and the teaching staff. Universities offered expensive preparatory courses for the candidates, and the university professors provided paid individual consultations and even promised help for their protégés during the examination. For the academic community it was an important source of the additional income. Only after the establishment of the National Examination Centre did things start to change. The argument that school-based evaluation is subjective and that only the entrance exams can ensure the objective and qualified selection of students now started to lose its convincing power. Most of the universities declared that they would recognize the results of the national testing as valid indicators for student selection.
The third area where universities still retain their power and are not inclined to seek for the compromise is in their relationship with colleges and other institutions of higher education. In many countries students can obtain the bachelor’s degree while studying in colleges, or at least some of the courses taken in colleges are recognized as valid by the universities. This is not the case in Lithuania. Rectors keep claiming that these other institutions cannot assure the required quality of the courses and that they do not match the universities’ higher education standards. If successfully completed studies in the college were to be recognized as valid for at least a part of the bachelor’s course, universities would inevitably lose some of their potential first- and second-year students.
In the previous Soviet system scientific research institutes were not formally linked with the universities. Most of them belonged to the Academy of Sciences. After the regaining of independence the question of assuring the quality of scientific research came on to the agenda. The external review conducted by the Norwegian Academy of Sciences showed that at least some of the institutes were unproductive and should be either amalgamated with the universities or closed down. The institutes fiercely resisted and continued to secure their existence on state funding. Finally the Parliamentary Commission on Education asked the Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education to make a second report on research institutes. The results were essentially the same as the previous conclusions of the Norwegian experts. However, due to intense lobbying efforts of the heads of the institutes not a single scientific research institution has been closed down or incorporated into the university structures.
The analysis of the present situation in higher education leads us to the conclusion that the élite of the academic community – university professors and heads of scientific research institutes – is perhaps the most powerful interest group in the field of education. It gained significant influence during the first years of independence and only recently lost some of its strength after a long battle with the government. No wonder that universities are standing aside from the ongoing educational reform and are often considered as being the most conservative educational establishments and the least inclined to change. The academic community prefers to speculate on the topic of quality and uses it in order to secure its exceptional position in Lithuanian education.
Another influential group in the field of education is the group of secondary heads, especially the heads of the newly re-established élite schools, the gymnasia. During the post-communist years secondary heads managed to acquire many powers, earlier exercised by local education authorities or the Ministry of Education. Heads of the gymnasia organized their own association which plays an important role in deciding, whether other schools could be granted gymnasium status. In this sense the members of the Association of Gymnasiums are involved in the process of quality assurance in upper secondary education. Representatives of the Association of Gymnasiums as well as members of the School Heads’ Association also participate in the process of head teacher appraisal. Some act as experts while evaluating the activities of the candidates; some are members of the Supreme Commission of Headteachers’ Appraisal which reviews the evidence presented by the experts and grants higher qualification categories.
As a result of the educational reform, school principals retained and even expanded their powers in schools. They play an important role in the process of teacher appraisal. As we have mentioned above, lower qualification categories are granted to teachers by local educational authorities after they receive positive recommendations from commissions, headed by the administration of their schools. They also make decisions concerning recruitment and dismissal of the school staff. Though now they have to share powers with the newly established school councils, in most cases self-governing bodies in schools are still too weak to implement an independent school policy. So usually the principal’s opinion is crucial in defining, what is “good teaching”, “competent teacher”, “effective management” and “appropriate curriculum” at the school level. Informal groups of teachers and members of the school management team are also influential in a number of schools. School principals however remain central figures in power relationships within educational institutions. This belief is supported by the research data obtained during a recent study (Zelvys, 1999).
Though the secondary heads exercise substantial power, they are not as strong as the interest group of academics. They could not persuade the universities to recognize their Matura examinations as valid and objective. With the establishment of the National Examination Centre the dual system of examination is to be changed and the entrance exams to the universities will gradually fade away. The Centre, though, was initiated and is governed by the representatives of institutions of higher education, so the control of this important tool of measuring quality of teaching – Matura exams – is now fully in the hands of the academics.
Educational administrators at different levels lost a significant part of the power which was granted to them during the totalitarian period. Local education authorities lost much of their influence when the function of inspection was delegated to the counties. LEAs still maintain a function of monitoring education at the local level, but they do not have effective mechanisms for influencing unsatisfactory schools. The Ministry of Education still maintains powerful means of influence. However, frequent changes of top officials as well as the middle managers in the Ministry precludes the possibility of forming stable interest groups. The team of experts has just started to formulate the concept of a national system of monitoring education. The development of national standards of education and educational indicators has started several years ago but has not yet finished.
Political parties do not consider education as a priority and do not exercise significant influence on educational developments in the country. Neither are they bothered with the problem of assuring quality. Even the results of international comparisons (such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS, which showed that achievements of our children are lagging behind other countries), did not evoke any political response. Perhaps the only area which arouses interests of politicians is higher education, as at least some of them are members of the academic oligarchy.

Conclusions

Our analysis has shown that the formal model provides a rather limited understanding of the developments of quality assurance in Lithuanian education. The increase of formal structures is minimal and the implementation of new functions is limited. The element of uncertainty can be traced in the development of quality assurance systems; however, most of the actions in this domain were planned and expected. The most rewarding in this sense is the political model. From the political perspective we may observe major changes in the redistribution of power and influence. After the fall of the Communist power, the academic élite became the most influential group in Lithuanian education. Institutions of higher education became autonomous without any external system of quality assurance. Recent efforts by the Lithuanian Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education and the National Science Council to introduce at least some elements of external control were successful only to a certain extent. On the other hand, the academic community maintains a powerful tool for influencing the quality of teaching in secondary education by setting their own standards for the entrance exams, and, recently, by taking over the control of the National Examination Centre. Another influential group – secondary heads – exercises a certain influence on the process of teacher, and to some extent, headteacher appraisal, thus controlling the quality of the teaching staff. Educational administrators of different levels, though formally still in charge of many mechanisms of quality control, are weakened by frequent personnel changes and thus are incapable of forming a stable interest group. Political parties do not take any active actions in assuring the quality of education as they do not consider education a priority. We assume that in future the political model will remain as the dominating managerial model in Lithuanian education.
Our assumptions are based on personal observations and expert evaluations of recent educational developments in Lithuania. There were also some empirical studies concerning formal structures and power relations within and between educational institutions. However, we understand that this is only one of the possible ways of looking at the system of quality assurance in Lithuanian education. Other theoretical frameworks could be no less interesting and rewarding while analyzing processes of managing education in rapidly changing post-communist societies.

References

Bolman, L G and T E Deal (1984), Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bush, T (1995), Theories of Education Management. 2nd ed. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Dalin, P (1993), Changing the School Culture. London: Cassell.
Ministry of Culture and Education of the Republic of Lithuania (1994), General Concept of Education in Lithuania. Vilnius: Leidybos Centras.
Sergiovanni, T J (1984), “Cultural and Competing Perspectives in Administrative Theory and Practice” in T J Sergiovanni and J E Corbally (eds.), Leadership and Organizational Culture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Zelvys, R (1999), Managing Education in a Period of Change. Oslo: ELI Publications.