Leading for Quality

Some Dilemmas and Considerations of a Head Teacher

Silva Roncelli-Vaupot

National Leadership School, Ljubljana Slovenia

Introduction

Quality is becoming an increasingly important issue in education. It seems to be even more in the focus of management attention than ‘pure’ strivings for effectiveness, efficiency and improvement of organizational work. Some would conclude that this interest has been always present, but the competitive economic climate in which we are living has brought it into the limelight. Nevertheless, providing quality of product and service is becoming a strong demand of the time we are living in.
Educational organizations all over the world share the destiny of the whole society within which they operate. They are under great pressure to improve the quality of their work. The pressure comes from outside and from inside the school. Some could claim that increasing professionalism of educational organizations by itself implies a commitment to quality, even in the absence of outside pressure. Nevertheless it can be assumed that outside pressures reinforce the search for higher quality in the work of the school. Quality is usually perceived as a value; but obsession with quality might become its own justification. However, striving for higher quality in education should be perceived and managed as an essential contribution to the betterment of the work of educational organization and not simply as a fashionable issue.
Educational organizations can choose between various approaches to the improvement of quality: quality controls, quality assurance, total quality management or even re–engineering. Originally developed for business firms, these approaches have been adopted for non–profit and educational organizations as well.
It is essential that education does evolve its own view on how to manage quality because the educational process is extraordinary complex given the enormous variability of inputs, the interactions that take place and the frequently ambiguous outcomes. Each school needs to decide its own way of improvement and development.
The role of the headteacher in the processes of improving quality is important. However it should be clear that leadership cannot be perceived as a ‘magic’ solution for better schooling (Sergiovanni, 1992). It is only one element of the process.
The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the dilemmas faced by a headteacher in attempting to improve quality within a school context, to stress some dimensions of headteachers’ leadership which are ‘required’ in leading for quality and to obtain some small insight into Slovene headteachers’ perceptions of quality.

The Slovene Context

Improving the quality of educational organizations is becoming an issue of public and state concern in Slovenia (Gaber, 1998; Lorencic, 1998). Within the last decade external examinations in primary education, inspection and an external baccalaureate have been introduced as ‘outside’ influences on the work of schools. There are also internal school initiatives to improve the quality of their work. A few schools gain the ISO standards certificate. At the annual conference of headteachers in November 1998 an approach towards improving quality was introduced by the National Board of Education. A few schools started to ‘test’ the approach.
Headteachers are perceived as being the essential person in all these initiatives. Consequently, their perceptions concerning quality could be a relevant indicator in auditing the present state before the ‘quality talk’ influences their perceptions of quality. Therefore, some data were collected.
At the commencement of a seminar about leading for quality 48 headteachers (an opportunity sample, 23 of whom were male) were asked: “Could you please describe one attempt of quality improvement you have undertaken within the school?” The analysis of their answers demonstrates that none of them had described a systematic approach to quality within the school they lead. The examples of quality improvement quoted included action directed at:

• Headteachers’ activities: lesson observation, conducting meetings, study meetings, informing co–workers, evidence of teachers’ work, contacting pupils, etc.
• Teachers’ work: assignments, project work with pupils, afternoon activities, the use of the computer room, work with pupils with special needs, etc.
• Whole school work: improving discipline, collaboration among teachers, interpersonal relations, school climate, team work, etc.
• Resources: new classrooms, new gym, better conditions for work,
• Others such as school events, gardening, etc.

The initiative for improvement was except in five cases exclusively on the part of the headteacher. No mission, common vision or common goals are mentioned as the ‘compass’ for common strivings within the school.
All except one of the examples of improving quality consider only the pedagogical aspects of headteachers’ work.
This small study suggests that the pressure on schools to undertake systematic approaches to quality is still not present. So headteachers and schools have some time to rethink their approaches and to gain a broader insight on quality for schools. Literature on quality could help in broadening the picture and in to building a new one which is appropriate to the Slovenian context.

Defining Quality

The study of quality raises the awareness that ‘quality’ is an elusive term. Often we are quite sure that we know what quality is, but the problem occurs when we need to define it. In private life, we usually talk much about quality of products, work, life, performance, and indeed, we become aware that quality has complex meaning. While this could lead us to perceive it as an intellectual problem, quality should be perceived also as an important management process.
Sallis (1993) argues that “quality is a dynamic idea and exact definitions are not particularly helpful”. However, it is necessary for a headteacher and the staff to gain a broader view on quality before starting the process of managing quality within an educational organization. That requires knowledge about various concepts of quality, information about experiences within actual schools, discussion about internal options and motives for starting a systematic approach towards improving quality, appropriate leadership and a personal commitment to quality.
The question of what quality is might give us various answers. “Some see the quality as implicit and indefinable (‘you know it when you see it’). Others take what might be termed a ‘measurable view’ of quality (it is satisfactory conformance to the same predefined standard), others claim that quality is a matter of reputation” (Murgatroyd and Morgan, 1993). Drucker (1992) stresses the value dimension: “Quality is a condition and restraint.” West–Burnham (1992) stresses the elusiveness of quality: “Quality is defined by the providers and it will always be elusive. If it is defined by clients in terms of relationships then it becomes potentially attainable.” In what could be seen as a paradox, the elusiveness in defining quality seems not to be a problem for those creating a systemic approach for improving quality.
Quality has different meanings to different people and these ‘meanings’ strongly influence their behaviour. The realization that subject perceptions are the ‘real’ state within the school is important before starting a process of improving quality. For the headteacher it could be very important to know and respect these various perceptions, before leading others through mediation towards a common ‘good’. A dilemma about what would happened with diversity of perceptions after a systematic approach is undertaken appears on that point. Coping with and not destroying diversities, and balancing them with commonalties within one organization, is a problem and a challenge for a headteacher.

Quality Concepts

Sallis (1993) identifies various concepts of quality.

1. Quality as an absolute concept.
   “Quality product are things of perfection made of no expense spared …pursuing quality is all about performing to the highest standards” (ibid.). Quality in this sense is used to convey status and position advantage. Within education, there are schools which are promoting their work with words: ‘school performs with high quality’. This concept of quality could be seen as essentially elitist, but, somehow being ‘the best’, being ‘excellent’, being ‘better than others’ could be claimed as a basic motive for a systematic approach towards improving quality within one’s school. There is a danger that a motive like this becomes exclusively elitist and therefore inappropriate for an educational organization. However, could the tendency to be in one sense elitist be perceived as an inappropriate motive for a start to the process of improvement? A headteacher and the staff should consider that question while clarifying their motives for undertaking a systematic approach for higher quality.
2. The relative concept of quality.
   Sallis (1993) specifies that quality is not defined as an attribute of a product or service, but as something which is ascribed to it. Quality can be judged to exist when a good or service meets the specifications that has laid down for it. This view points out the crucial importance of standards. Two aspects are:
3. First, measuring up to specifications. That is the producer’s definition of quality system or ‘fitness for purpose’. Quality for the producer is achieved by its product or service meeting a pre–defined specification in a constant fashion. For an educational organization would mean the quality could be demonstrated by a quality assurance system, which would enable the consistent ‘production’ of service to a particular standard or specification. Some specific dilemmas arise. Motives for introducing standards lie in a need to demonstrate and not primarily to improve the quality of their work. The ‘suitability’ of standards may be questionable. Standards are usually imposed from outside the school: there is a question of whose perception of quality is incorporated in such a quality standards. The approach was developed for use in industry. When adopted for educational use one can doubt the adequacy of such an adaptation. The pedagogical work of the school is very complex and specific. These standards might not include the essential elements of the work in the school, that is, learning and teaching, but such others as service to customers, the physical environment, resources, and access to the building. Still it is very important to realize that the ‘professional view’ on quality is very relevant when judging quality of the educational service. There is a danger for a headteacher and the staff that in their striving after (im)proving quality though standards they might overlook the essential issues for betterment of their work.
4. Second, meeting customer needs. This is sometimes called ‘quality in perception’. “Quality can be said lie in the eyes of the beholders” (Sallis, 1993). This is a very powerful definition, which stresses the importance of being close to the customer. It is very difficult to define who the customers of school are. It is obvious that the final customers are students/pupils, who typically are not perceived as being capable of knowing what their real needs are. “School and colleges have multiple stakeholders – students, parents, employers, funding bodies, local and central authorities – each with different quality definitions” (Preedy, Glatter and Levacic, 1997). Which definition of quality and judgement of quality should be taken into consideration? Headteachers should mediate various quality agendas while managing quality within the school. This could be seen as an idealistic stand. In reality it might happen that headteacher has his or her own quality agenda and leads others to accept it. It could also happened that the state as a powerful stakeholder would like to impose a specific approach to quality in the name of taxpayers. Parents in their school bodies could demand that their agenda should be considered. Nevertheless, it could also happen that no initiative for a systematic approach appears.

Approaches to Quality

Quality control is the most common approach to quality within education systems. It is claimed as being the oldest quality concept (Sallis, 1993). It involves the detection and elimination of ‘defective’ items. Within education, quality control is concerned with identifying problems and weaknesses by checking outcomes after the educational process has occurred. External inspection, public examinations, internal testing and examinations, competitions in knowledge, annual reports and publications could be seen as a kind of quality control (Preedy, Glatter and Levacic, 1997). There are also various forms of control by parents and students, such as parental bodies and pupils associations. Inspection, which is perceived as a powerful aid to quality control, is not primarily designed to assure quality outcomes, but rather to control and certify for public consumption the quality of the product. The quality control system might help a school to prove it’s accountability: inspection will probably stay a very common quality system within education. However, these control procedures may be perceived as an additional aid in improving quality and not as a real guarantee of it.
Quality assurance is a before– and during–the–event process. Quality is designed into the process. The approach is aimed at preventing defects and faults: to do things right first time and every time. Every member of the staff becomes responsible for quality. Quality is assured by meeting standards. Within a school introducing quality standards might focus attention on making rules and rule breaking rather than establishing common goals and parameters for achieving them. Quality assurance involves supplying evidence to external agencies about an organization’s potential effectiveness (Taylor and Hill, 1997). In that sense, the approach offers a school the possibility to improve its potential quality. However, assuring the quality of pedagogical work through introducing standards is rather unrealistic. The effects of educational processes depend on multiple factors, which cannot always be affected by the work of the school.
Quality management systems attempt to assure quality through the introduction of the appropriate processes for the management and monitoring of operators. It’s purpose is to integrate the process of work with mechanisms which are necessary for assuring quality at each stage of education process. The process is planned, outcomes clearly defined, proper strategies for how those are to be achieved settled, the system reviewed and audited.
The Total Quality Management (TQM) approach has been developed for industry, and has been adopted by non–profit organizations. It incorporates, extends and develops quality assurance. Sallis (1993) claims that “TQM is about creating a quality culture where the aim of every member of the staff is to delight their customers, and where the structure of their organization allows them to do so.” TQM is essentially concerned with customer–focused organizational improvement, based on customer perception of quality. The term ‘customer’ has been extended to include internal and external customers. It seems that TQM is a very promising and demanding approach to introduce, to manage and to lead. The headteacher is not a customer! Managing TQM requires awareness of it’s main points:

• commitment to a shared vision (shared goals) and values;
• an extended understanding of the customer–driven and process–oriented basis for quality;
• teamwork as the basis for the organization’s activities;
• setting of challenging goals;
• a systematic day–to–day management.

Davis and West–Burnham (1997) stress four key components of TQM: the status of the customer, the emphasis on values and vision, the management of process and the significance attached to the management of people. There is another component, which has great importance. This is the integrative holistic view of TQM, which means that components mentioned above have to be perceived as being of equal significance.
Murgatroyd and Morgan (1993) argue that an organization in striving for quality should emphasize the so called ‘soft qualities’ of:

• a culture which maximizes the power of the employees nearest to the customer (within the school these are teachers) with a great sense of ownership and of responsibility for the future of the organization,
• commitment as a sense of pride and opportunity for development among the staff and customers. We assume that teachers within the school basically are committed to improving the quality of work in their subject area but the extent to which they are committed to common goals and tasks is questionable. Introducing TQM sets the focuses on the organization as a whole,
• communication flows freely. It is based on facts rather than on rumour and assumptions. A leader should provide that kind of communication.

The authors mention also three other features which unlock the difference between effective and ineffective TQM initiatives. These are:

• trust (leaders can lead only if followers trust them),
• leadership (leadership inspires, provokes, confronts and challenges people),
• empowerment (enabling employees to participate in decision making processes, to be able to initiate new ideas).

Taylor and Hill (1997) identify another important element of TQM. “Central to TQM theory is the idea of continuous self–improvement; therefore TQM organizations are essentially learning systems.” That statement might imply that organizations introducing TQM are ‘learning organizations’ or vice versa, that learning organizations are TQM organizations. In this context, learning has a positive connotation and is associated with development. Learning is defined as “…a process of changing one’s activity under the influence of one’s experience and with relatively permanent effects“ (Pecjak, 1977). Consequently, learning is about changing and changing does not always mean developing or growing in a positive sense.
There are assumptions that schools mainly keep to the ‘old’ model of managing which claims the headteacher to be in charge of everything and to make almost all decisions by him or herself. Changing this is a crucially important point not only for implementing a TQM approach, but for the effectiveness of the schools as well.
There are doubts about the applicability of TQM. Total quality management is based on the promise of “homogeneity in believe and action” (Davis and West– Burnham, 1997, p.11). It is assumed that a high level of consensus is possible and desirable within the school. TQM requires specification and conformity. Therefore it could be argued that TQM potentially denies the diversity of thinking and heuristic processes which enable development. The philosophy of continuous improvement is another keystone of TQM which raises some doubts. Constantly introducing changes can cause difficulties in keeping the appropriate balance between the existing and the new, and between maintenance and change. It should be considered that all phases of change processes needs time before a change becomes an everyday routine (Fullan, 1995).

Leadership For Quality

The theorists of the‘ quality approach’ for schools stress the importance of the leadership dimension of a headteacher’s role. The emphasis has been given to ‘appropriate leadership’. ‘Appropriateness’ could be understood in various ways. The essential elements of any quality approach may require distinctive emphases of headteacher behaviour. It could be assumed that headteacher’s leadership dimensions for implementing a system of quality control or for quality assurance may be different from those required for TQM. Thus a quality system which is based mainly on inspection, external testing and proving quality through ‘zero defects’ might create a requirement for strong autocratic leadership, where the headteacher is expected to use positional and coercive power to achieve ‘common’ goals and to demonstrate the accountability of the school. The style might not enable a continuous development of the school as a whole, and could be claimed as not ethically appropriate for educational organizations.
Introducing quality standards as an assurance for quality may cause the same leadership ‘symptoms’ as quality control system. A headteacher could be enthusiastic about introducing the standards, and his or her position gives a headteacher the power to assure the staff about the rightness the decision. That could be reinforced by the power of the body (for example Ministry, Board of Education) which is initiating that approach. It could happen that a standard would be introduced without having in mind the ‘first’ providers of quality, the teachers. They are most responsible for implementation.
However, one should be clear. Whatever quality approach would be introduced, “if there is no total involvement of leadership in quality …then forget it.” (Murgatroyd and Morgan, 1993). It is obvious that the iron law of quality is that “commitment to quality must come from the top” (Sallis, 1993). Certainly, that fact is not to be perceived as the sufficient condition for the effective introduction of a quality approach, but it is certainly an important one.
Theorists of TQM approach are very clear about what kind of leadership is required for TQM. “Leadership in the TQM context is visionary in that it embraces empowerment, performance and strategy” (Murgatroyd and Morgan, 1993). From this perspective, one can see leadership as the systemic basis for empowerment of others in a way that enables them to achieve challenging goals and to meet the expectations of customers (internal and external). It could be significant that the headteacher might be the only person within the school, who according to TQM, is not perceived as a customer.
Sallis (1993, p. 88) is more specific. He lists what a leader of an institution undertaken total quality must do:

• have a vision of total quality management for his or her institution;
• have a clear commitment to the quality improvement process;
• communicate the quality message;
• ensure that customer needs are at the centre of the institution’s policies and practices;
• ensure that there are adequate channels for the voice of customers;
• lead staff development;
• be careful not to blame others when problems arise – most problems are the result of policies of the institution and not the failings of the staff;
• lead innovation within the institutions;
• ensure that organizational structures clearly define responsibilities and provide the maximum delegation compatible with accountability;

In this sense, it is obvious “…that TQM as a set of tools is strongly linked to management aspects of the headteacher role, while TQM as a philosophy of continuous improvements is more related to leadership. There is no clear cut distinction, because both aspects, the management and the leadership of headteachers’ roles overlap constantly“ (Roncelli–Vaupot, Pecel and Koren, 1999). Leadership for TQM ought to be both transactional and transformational. Transformational leadership according to Bass and Avolio (1993, pp. 7–8) includes:

• Inspirational leadership – the heightening of subordinate motivation. It is about inspiring to the highest level of motivation and through that provoking performance which is beyond their normal expectation. Introducing TQM requires motivating subordinates for a constant improvement of their work. That could not be achieved without inspiration.
• Individualized consideration. A leader treats subordinates according to their personal needs. The headteacher treats them as internal customers, assuring good conditions for their work.
• Intellectual stimulation. A leader influences subordinates’ thinking and imagination. Quality could be also perceived as an intellectual challenge.
• Idealized influence. Subordinates identify with the leader’s vision. The vision for the future, mission and clear goals are important to unite all forces within the school in a common direction. A headteacher should consider whether the vision has been created together with others in the organization: if not, it has no real integrative power.

Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1998) identify factors of transformational leadership for schools, which are very similar to these mentioned above: building a school vision, establishing school goals, providing intellectual stimulation, offering individualized support, modelling best practice and important organizational values, demonstrating high performance expectations, creating productive school culture and developing structures for to foster participation in decision making.
TQM also requires transactional leadership. This comprises a technology of control that facilitates an exchange relationship with followers (Gronn, 1996, p.15). Sillins (1994) stresses that transactional leadership focuses on basic needs and extrinsic reward as a source of motivation. Both inspirational dimension and coping with every day routine is important for the effective headteacher’s work.
Managing the process for TQM means also paying attention to the significance of other factors also:

• prevention (minimizing the possibility of error though definition of standards),
• measurement (in order to understand the extent to which a process conforms to an agreed specification),
• facilitating continuous improvement.

To achieve this involves using appropriate working structure and creating a high level of trust, involvement and the acceptance of personal responsibility.
Leadership for such quality approaches as TQM could be perceived as being idealized. It requires a ‘total’ attention and involvement of the headteacher in quality strivings, which are slightly unrealistic to achieve. The headteacher’s role and tasks are very complex and require an appropriate combination of various leadership dimensions. A headteacher should consider such leadership ‘dimensions’ as managerial, instructional, moral, contingent, participative and transformational, while leading the betterment of a school.
A headteacher has to be aware of the strengths and limitation of quality concepts and approaches before starting a process of introducing quality improvement within a particular school; including the consideration of his or her own limitation, both personal and professional.

Some Issues to Consider While Leading for Quality

Quality is certainly an elusive term. It is important not to treat it only as an intellectual problem but also as a management one. Quality should be managed as a contribution to the betterment of the work of educational organizations, considered in relation to other approaches, such as school effectiveness and school improvement. It’s focus ought to be the improvement of learning and teaching as the essential elements of the work of school. To assure its effectiveness a culture of continuous improvements has to be built: that is the long–term guarantee for real betterment of the school. Knowledge and skills in managing change could be helpful in achieving these long–term effects. A headteacher is expected to perceive and manage quality for the whole school, while ensuring the continuous individualized contribution of all involved. The various approaches to quality require careful selection regarding their suitability within the specific context of a particular school. Decisions about this should be made in common by all involved. The headteacher’s role is important, especially in establishing and supporting collaborative links within the school and with the environment. The final aim and basic value of all efforts should be to improve the quality of work for students.

References

Baronsky, M and S Lawton (1994), Developing Quality Schools: A Handbook, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Beare, H, B J Caldwell and R H Millikan (1992), Creating an Excellent School, Some New Management Techniques, London: Routledge.
Bhindi, N and P Duignan (1997), “Leadership for a New Century”, Educational Management and Administration, 25 (2): 117–132.
Davis, B and J West–Burnham (1997), Re–engineering and Total Quality in Schools, London: Pitman.
Duke, L D (1998), School Leadership and the Hard Work of Helping Individual Students to Learn, Paper for the Conference on Exploring New Horizons in School Leadership, March, 1998, Umĺa, Sweden.
Fullan, M G (1995), Change Forces, Brighton: The Falmer Press.
Gaber, S (1997), Unpublished data, Posvet ravnateljev in ravnateljic, Oš, Portoroz.
Gronn, P (1998), Paper presented to the Conference on School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Manchester, 1998.
Harris, A, N Bennett and M Preedy (1997), Organizational effectiveness and improvement in education, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K (1998), “Organizational Learning and Transformational Leadership” Paper to the Conference on Exploring New Horizons in School Leadership, Umĺa, Sweden, March, 1998.
Leithwood, K, D Jantzi and R Steinbach (1998), Changing Leadership for Changing Times, London: Routledge.
Leithwood, K (1994), “Leadership for school restructuring,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 30 (4): 498–518.
Leithwood, K, T P Begley and J B Cousins (1994), Developing Expert Leadership for the Future Schools, Brighton: The Falmer Press.
Lorenčič, I (1998), Unpublished data, Posvet ravnateljev in ravnateljic OŠ, Portoroz.
Mortimore, P, P Sammons, L Stoll, D Lewis and R Ecob (1988), School Matters: The Junior Years, Salisbury: Open Books.
Murgatroyd, S and C Morgan (1993), Total Quality and the Schools, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pečjak, V (1977), Psihologija spoznavanja, Ljubljana, Slovenia: Drzavna zalozba Slovenije.
Preedy, M (1993), Managing the Effective School, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Reynolds, D, B Bollen, D Hopkins, L S Stoll and N Lagerweij (1996), Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement, London: Routledge.
Roncelli–Vaupot, S, P Pecek and A Koren (1999), Perceptions of headteachers’ leadership before and after finishing the programme of the Slovene leadership school. Paper for the CSEI conference, San Antonio, 1999.
Sallis, E (1993), Total Quality Management in Education, London: Kogan Page.
Sergiovanni, T (1992), Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sillins, C H (1994), “The relationship Between Transformational and Transactional Leadership and School Improvement Outcomes,” School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5 (2): 272–298.
Taylor, A and F Hill (1997), “Quality management in education” in Harris, A, N Bennet and M Preedy (1997), Organizational effectiveness and improvement in education, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
West–Burnham, J (1992), Managing Quality in Schools, Longman.