ED 391 229

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

PUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 027 294

Total Quality Management Passing Fad or "The RealThing"? An Implementation Study.

SERVE: SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education.Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.195)

RP9100201059p.

SERVE, 345 South Magnolia Drive, Suite D-23,Tallahassee, FL 32301 ($5 plus $2.50 shipping andhandling).Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) ReportsResearch/Technical (143)

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.Case Studies; Educational Improvement; *EducationalQuality; Elementary Secondary Education;Organizational Development; Organizational Theories;*Participative Decision Making; *ProgramImplementation; Quality Circles; Systems Approach;*Teacher Attitudes; *Total Quality Management

In 1992, the SouthEastern Regional Vision forEducation (SERVE) began a 3-year research-and-development effort tosupport four schools and two school districts in the southeasternUnited States in their implementation of Total Quality Management(TQM) processes. This document describes the experiences andperceptions of the participating educators. Following theintroduction, chapter 2 introduces the main concepts of Total QualityManagement. Chapter 3 describes the experiences of each of the pilotsites mnd offers a.framework for systemic reform, although there isno one correct way to implement TQM. The fourth chapter presentsfindings of an independent evaluation of the pilot sites'implementation of TQM strategies. Data derived from focus-group andindividual interviews suggest that the keys to a total-quality schoolinclude: (1) a committed and supportive leader; (2) a faculty that isopen to change; (3) time for training; (4) the inclusion of allfaculty in an orientation; and (5) the recognition that TQM requiresa long-term commitment. Other TQM resources and efforts in theSoutheast are listed. The appendix contains descriptions of TQM pilotsites. One figure and one table are included. (Contains 15references.) (LMI)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

c)s

gs SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education1-4

Total OualityManagement:Passing Fad or"The Real Thing"?An Implementation Study

LI S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educationai Researcn ano i-oroyemeni

JUE CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERICI

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

CI Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions slated on thisdocument do not necessarily iepiesentofficial OERI position cr policy

2 tbinicirr rievriv A I7 A IT A IDT

Total Ouality Management:Passing Fad or

"The Real Thing"?

An Implementation Study

SouthEokrn Regional Visum tor Education

SERVESouthEastern Regional Vision for Education

Associated with the School of Education,University of North Carolina at Greensboro

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.

Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercialproducts, or organizations impl endorsement by the U.S. Government.

document was produced with funding from the,Oftice ot Educational Research and Improvement,Department of Education, under contract no. RIN10020It?.

3

Final Editing done bySERVE's Publication Quality Assurance Team

Charles Ahearn, Publications Manager/Senior EditorJim Bleyer. Sharing Success CoordinatorKelly Kil lman Dryden, Design & Layout SpecialistLisa Gray. Distribution SpecialistNikki B. Lewis, WriterLucy Ann Walker-Fraser. Research Assistant

II

Table of ContentsAbout the SERVE Laboratory

Acknowledgments vii

CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1

CHAPTER 2: An Overview of Total Quality Management 5

TQM and Site-Based Management: A Good Fit 5

Problems with Managing by Results 7

TQM: An Alternative to Managing by Results 8A primary focus on customer satisfaction 8Constant dedication to a philosophy of continuous improvement 9Establishing the process of continuous improvement (PDCA) 10

Understanding how the parts of the system fit together 10Effective use of teams and employee involvementQuality leadership 11

An improvement versus "gotcha" culture for students 12

CHAPTER 3: Understanding Implementation 13

Descriptions of SERVE'S TQM Pilot Sites 13

Description of the Six Site Contexts 13

Description of Training/Facilitation Provided to the Sites 13

Who was chosen to participate' 14How was training/facilitation provided at the sites? 14

Four school sites 14Johnston County School District, North Carolina 14Rock Hill School District Three, South Carolina 15

What did the teams do? 16

Summary of Implementation Across the Six Sites 16What were some commonalities among the sites? 16

What were some differences between the sites 16

Customer-Focus 17

Continuous 1 mprovement Phi losophy 17

(:)ntinuous Improvement Process 18

Systemic Focus 19

Quality Leadership 19

Improvement Versus "Gotcha" Culture 2 0

111

CHAPTER 4: What do the Educators at the Six Sites Have to Say? 21

Findings 21

Participants' Definitions of TQM 21

Customer focus 21

Constant dedication to continuous improvement 2 2

Understanding of how the parts of the system fit together 2 2

Effective use of teams and quality leadership 2 2

An improvement versus "gotcha" culture 2 2

Considerations Regarding Facilitating Understanding of TQM 2 3

Perceptions of Implementation 2 4Perceptions of Impact 2 5

Leadership/Personnel 2 6

Time in the School Day 27Funding 2 8

Continuity 2 8

Lessons Learned 2 9

CHAPTER 5: Considerations in Getting Started 31

What does TQM have to offer? 31

What schools or districts might benefit from TQW 31

What do school leaders need to consider in starting TQM ? 32What do districts need to consider in starting TQM ? 33

Communication Issues 33Training/Facilitation Issues 34

References 35

Appendix: Descriptions of SERVE's TQM Pilot Sites 37

iv6

About the SERVE LaboratorySERVE, the South Eastern Regional Vision for Education, is a coalition of educators,business leaders, governors, and policymakers who are seeking comprehensive and

lasting improvement in education in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina,and South Carolina. The name of the Laboratory reflects a commitment to creating ashared vision of the future of education in the Southeast.

The mission of SERVE is to provide leadership, support, and research to assist state and localefforts in improving educational outcomes, especially for at-risk and rural students. Labora-tory goals are to address critical issues in the region, work as a catalyst for positive change,serve as a broker of exemplary research and practice, and become an invaluable source ofinformation for 1.nu.v.t.ua.s working to promote systemic educational improvement.

Collaboration and networking are at the heart of SERVE's missien; the laboratory's struc-ture is itself a model of collaboration. The laboratory has four offices in the region to betterserve the needs of state and local education stakeholders. SERVE's Greensboro office man-ages a variety of research and development projects that meet regional needs for the devel-opment of new products, services and information about emerging issues. The develop-ment of this manual was funded throdgh such an R&D effort. The laboratory's informa-tion office is located in Tallahassee. Field services offices are located in Atlanta, Greensboro,Tallahassee, and on the campus of Delta State University in Cleveland, Mississippi.

To request publications or to join the SERVE mailing list and receive announcementsabout laboratory publications, contact the SERVE office in Tallahassee (address below).

SERVEAlabama50 N. Ripley StreetGordon Persons BuildingMontgomery, AL 36130334-242-9758Fax 334-242-9708

SERVEFlorida345 South Magnolia DriveSuite D-23Tallahassee, FL 32301

Lab904-671-6000800-352-6001Fax 904-671-6020

Clearinghouse800-352-3747

Math Science Consurt iu m904-671-6033800-854-0476Fax 904-671-6010

SERVEGeorgia41 Marietta Street, NWSuite 1000Atlanta, GA 30303404-577-7737800-659-3204SERVE-Line 800-487-7605Fax 404-577-7812

SERVE-MississippiDelta State UniversityBox 3183Cleveland, MS 38732601-846-4384800-326-4548Fax 601-846-4402

SERVENorth Carolina201 Ferguson BuildingUNCO CampusP.O. Box 5367Greensboro, NC 274 5910-334-3211800-755-3277Fax 910-334-3268

AcknowledgmentsThe following educators were leaders in the SERVE funded TQM implementationefforts. We appreciate their hard work, persistence, dedication to quality, and their

willingness to share their experiences with others.

Deer Lake Middle School, Leon County School District, Tallahassee, Florida

Lee Fagan, DeanLeslie E. PI Ia, (1 u.k.ance CounselorMargarita Sasse, Former PrincipalTorn Inserra, PrincipalCarlos Sasse, Community PartnerMelanie Murphy, BookkeeperJeannette Pittman, Teacher

Connie Pfaender, TeacherShannon Penrod, TeacherMatt Rooks, TeacherCindee Talky, ESE Resource TeacherJesse Jackson, Former TeacherDorothy Henry, Teacher (retired)

Gulf Shores Middle School, Baldwin County School System, Gulf Shores, Alabama

Hank Vest, PrincipalPat Powell, Assistant Superintendent for CurriculumPeggy Graham, TeacherToni Stanton. TeacherSu:anne Wilbanks, Teacher

Magnolia Junior High, Moss Point School District, Moss Point, Mississippi

Richard Niles, PrincipalBob Weathersby, Former PrincipalMargie Burton, Teacher/Guidance CounselorBob Henley, Teacher/Math SpecialistBeverly Johnson, TeacherShauna Myers, Guidance CounselorGaye Parker, Teacher

Scott Elementary School, Thomasville City School District, Thomasville, Georgia

Robin Gay. PrincipalMaggie Boo:er, TeacherImogene Conyers, TeacherMary Friesen, TeacherMary Nlorrk, TeiicherKris Wilkinson, Teacher

Rock Hill School District, Rock Hill, South Carolina

Phillip McDaniel, SuperintendentJoe E. Gentry, Former SuperintendentJohn S. Taylor, Associate Superintendent (TQE Project Director)

District Office TeamKim HocuttKim ReeceLinda AllenPam ZeiglerClaudia KirbyDebra DeasOz:ie W. AhiBeryl Usry

Rawlinson Road MiddleSchool TeamTena Neely, PrincipalLinda McCormickDeb ReevesKay CarlisleJudy LukeJackie GreenRhonda HudakJulie KersbergenDeborah Wilson

Northwestern High School TeamEarl Lovelace, PrincipalWayne McIntoshGayle LanfordPat SmithTom SparksDiane HoweSu:ie HannersJudy Humphries

York Road Elementary School TeamJim Graham, PrincipalEarlena MackeyKathy TaylersonSusan KnoxHelen RogerCandy Bailey

Johnston County School District, Johnston County, North Carolina

James Causby, SuperintendentRandy Bridges, Assistant SuperintendentG. Thomas Houlihan, Former Superintendent

Four Oaks Middle SchoolBob Deaton, PrincipalAnnette McLamb, TeacherDeborah Westbrook, Teacher

Smithfield Middle SchoolLinda Stevens, PrincipalSharon McLamb, TeacherSusie Holloway, Teachir

9

Report Creditsendy McColskey, SERVE's Research Manager, visited with all sites, managed the R&Deffort, and conceptuali:ed and authored the repoit. However, the report was a true

collaborative effort.

Gabriel Massaro, one of the Westat trainers for the four school sites, contributed sections ofChapters 1 and 2. Dave Bayless of Bayless Associates contributed significant editing sugges-tions. In addition, Nancy Roche and Gabriel Massaro of Westat, Dave Bayless of BaylessAssociates, and Betty Fry and Charles Ahearn from the SERVE Tallahassee office all spent aproductive day with the author fleshing out the details of an early draft.

John Simmons and Walt Boyle of Simmons, Boyle, and Associates in Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina, under a contract with SERVE, collected the data and wrote an excellent report (ina very timely fashion) from which Chapter 4 was taken. We appreciate the cooperation ofall the administrators and teachers at the sites who participated in the Simmons and Boylefocus groups and interviews. These data from participants were critical to being able topaint a realistic picture of implementation.

Tom Williams of the North Carolina Business Committee for Education provided manyhelpful comments on the report, and other information and resources that proved useful inthinking through TQM implementation issues. John Taylor of Rock Hill District Three andRandy Bridges of Johnston County hosted a SERVE visit with project participants that washelpful in providing a more indepth understanding of theii projects. In addition, Johnprovided useful written materials from his dissertation and acted as a sounding board forideas for the report on several occasions. Materials from and conversations with Chris Collinsof Pinellas County Schools and Maurice Pearsall of Samford University's Quality EducationProgram were helpful in conceptualizing the implementation of TQM. Bill Smith, the Chair-man of the North Carolina Quality Leadership Foundation, offered SERVE the opportunityto review a draft of a TQM publication they are producing (Roadmap to the Quality Trans-formation in Education) which was helpful in thinking through implementation issues.Finally, Myra Copenhaver, of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction's Officeof Site-Based Management, provided access to the North Carolina report on the status of site-based management in the state and helpful comments on Chapter 2.

SERVE staff, Paula Egelson and Gina Burkhardt, provided a needed "critical" reading of thefirst draft of the publication as did project participants from all six sites. The SERVF ubli-cation staff Jim Bleyer, Lisa Gray, Kelly Killman Dryden, and Charles Ahearn edited, format-ted, and readied the document for printing.

Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, the four school teams (Deer Lake Middle School, GulfShores Middle School, Magnolia Junior High, and Scott Elementary) made a significantcommitment to write yearly case reports of their efforts from which many of the examplesin Chapter 3 were taken. These case reports for all six sites are summari:ed in the Appendix.We appreciate the efforts of these four sites to provide SERVE with these annual reports. Weappreciate the efforts of Jerry Natkin, SERVE'S Evaluation Manager, in suggesting the need forthese reports and facilitating the efforts of the school teams to write them.

To

HAPTER

IntroductionChange is a constantthroughout life.Today, more than ever, the World isimmersed in change. Consider that

many of the items we take for granted, fromantibiotics to lap-top computers and faxmachines, are relatively new. Organizations arealso responding to the changing environment.They need management structures that allowthem to be sensitive and responsive to thesechanges. Rather than rigid, authoritarianmanagement structures, many are adaptingmore flexible, team-based, less hierarchicalmanagement structures that can effectivelyand quickly meet customer or client needs.This less rigid, hierarchical approach to man-agement is embodied in the philosophy, prin-ciples and tools of Total Quality Management(TQM), based on the work of W. EdwardsDeming and others.

SERVE Research andDevelopment ProjectTQM has been adopted on a large scale bybusiness and industry. This managementapproach may also hold promise for the con-tinuous improvement of the quality of educa-tional services. In 1992, to learn more aboutwhat TQM might have to offer schools, theSouthEastern Regional Vision for Education(SERVE) began a three-year research and devel-opment effort to support four schools and twoschool districts in the Southeast in exploring,adapting and implementing Total QualityManagement. The purpose of this document isto describe the experiences and the perceptions

of the educators involved. In addition, writingthe document has provided all those involvedwith a chance to look back and articulate theoutcomes of this initial TQM implementationeffort and to summarize some important issuesfor others.

Key questions addressed are:

What does the implementation of TQMlook like in different contexts?

A What do educators who have applied TQMhave to say about the experience?What are some of the perceived benefits ofapplying TQM?

A What are some of the factors that should beconsidered in deciding whether and how toimplement TQM?

The publication is a collaboration amongSERVE Research and Development staff, TQMconsultants at Bayless Associates and Westat,evaluators (Simmons, Boyle, and Associates),and educators at the six sites:

Deer Lake Middle School, Leon County SchoolDistrict, Tallahassee, Florida

Gulf Shores Middle School, Baldwin CountySchool System, Gulf Shores, Alabama

Magnolia Junior High, Moss Point SchoolDistrict, Moss Point, Mississippi

\V. Fred Scott Elementary School, ThomasvilleCity School District, Thomasville, Georgia

Rock Hill School District Three, Rock Hill,South Carolina

11

Johnston County School DistrictjohnstonCounty, North Carolina

Description of thechapter contentAftcr a brief introduction in Chapter 2 to themain ideas of TQM, the experiences of thepilot sites, one each in the six southeasternstates in SERVE's region, are described inChapter 3. TQM is about how to managechange in a way that empowers faculty, stu-dents, and parents, and ultimately, leads to thecontinuous improvement of all programs,departments, units, and individuals in theorganization. It offers a framework for systemicreform. However, there is no one way to imple-ment TQM.

Each site comes to understand for their par-ticular context what the best approach wouldbe. As the six stories summarized briefly inChapter (and more fully in the Appendix)demonst I ate, there are multiple roads to theapplication of TQM. A school with a well-functioning school improvement team is at adifferent starting place than a school with afaculty set in their ways or a brand new school

ith faculty who have never worked together.Implementing TQM district wide in a smallcommunity brings different challenges andopportunities compared with implementationin a large district with large schools. Someschools may get off to a fast start, others a slowstart. Others start with great leadership com-mitment and then, with a change in leadership,find themselves in a period of ambiguousleadership commitment.

I n addition to describing how the approach toimplementation unfolded at each of the sixsites. SERVE explored commonalities in under-standings about TQM and perceptions ofimplementation and impact. In l9q4, SERVEcommissioned an independent research firm,Simmons. Boyle and Associates, Inc. (SB&A) ofChapel Hill, North Carolina, to conduct acomprehensive. qualitative study of TQMimplement at km at the pilot sit es. It was the

task of SB&A to collect dat a on t he pert ept km,of school stakeholders who were hot h direk t l\and indirectly involved with TQM at t he pilotsites, and to capture their collective wkdom.identifying factors relevant to imrlemeni ai ionof TQM. Chapter 4 descrihes t he t hews t hatemerged from the focus grklups, ant p1 ilied hverbatim comments.

Too often in education, decisions t o t ry newprograms are made without first examiningwhether the approach k a good fit wit h hecurrent needs and resources of the schooldistrict. In the last chapter. there is adiscusssion of issues involved in implement ation that might help others in determining itTQM holds promise for t heir part icular context, in planning for implementation. or inimproving existing TQNI efforts.

Other TQM resources andefforts in the SoutheastThis publication is not intended as a "how-to-guide, but as a window onto the experiences ofthe six SERVE pilot sites. Mans. "how-to"resources on TQM do exist. One "how to"handbook for school or project improvementteams, (based in part on the experience ofDavid Bayless (Bayless Associates), GabrielMassaro and Nancy Roche (NN estat ). and t hetrainers/facilitators for t he four SERVE schoolproject sites), is referenced below. This resouR cis referenced frequently in Chapter 2.

Team Handbook for Educators(How to Use Teams to ImproveQuality)By Peter scholte!,, David ielMassaro, and Nancy Roche

Copyright 004 by Joiner Associtit e, I ilL3800 Regent StreetPO. Box 5445Madison, WI 53705 0445008-138-8f 34

Vot t ho,e mote int eres,t ,1 -how i,,pc( ificailv targeted at implenietWit it ql itt t htdist Hit level, a guide tor lok al edlk at ion

reform leaders is available in draft form fromthe North Carolina Quality Leadership Foun-dation. This organization administers theMalcolm Baldrige Awards for Excellence in thestate and is interested in helping districtsassess themselves relative to specific criteria fororganizational excellence.

Roadmap for QualityTransformation in EducationBy Andy FrazierContact: Bill Smith, ChairmanThe North Carolina Quality Leadership Founda-tion4904 Professional Court, Suite 100Raleigh, NC 27609919-872-8198

We are also aware that several states haveorganizations (funded by corporate partners)which are taking leadership roles in provid-ing support in the form of sponsorship,networking, publications and/or training forschools and districts interested in imple-menting TQM. Two of these programs aredescribed below.

The North Carolina Business Committee forEducation is an organization of over 100 keybusineSses in North Carolina who share acommon desire for the systemic improve-ment of the public schools. The organizationis active in several areas (e.g., workforcepreparedness planning) but of relevance hereis its significant partnership and sponsorshipof seven school systems and their businessand university partners who have embarkedon a journey towards quality in education.

This partnership/sponsorship effort wasinitiated in 1993 by the state's governor, JimHunt. The organization has established aQuality Schools Steering Committee thatleads and guides this three-year pilot effort.The organization has an executive directorwho has become a point of contact for NorthCarolina Schools interested in TQM. Nearlyone-third of the state's school systems havecontacted the director for information aboutTQM in the past year.

The organization believes that if the QualitySchools Program is to evolve as a local modelfor the improvement of public education inNorth Carolina, the organization will need tolead an effort to develop strategies for ongo-ing support and expansion. To date, theorganization has raised more than $2.1 mil-lion in contributions, cash, and in-kindsupport for the implementation efforts ofthe seven pilot school districts. They hope toraise an additional $1.8 million for the fullimplementation of the three- year pilotQuality Schools Program.

Contact: Tom Williams, Executive DirectorNorth Carolina Business Committee

for EducationOffice of the Governor116 West Jones St.Raleigh, NC 27603-8001919-715-3535

In Alabama, the Alabama Power Foundation,Protective Life Corporation, Russell Corpora-tion, and the Economic Development Part-nership of Alabama are currently funding aprogram called Quality Education atSamford University's School of Education. Asof January 1995, over 1,000 educators in 50scnools had been trained in Total QualityManagement concepts by the Samford pro-gram. The program literature states that

Total Quality Education is an instrumentof change, providing the mechanism tomanage schools more effectively and tosignificantly, increase student learning.Administrators, teachers, students, par-ents, and community members will betrained to use quality improvementmethods to identify and solve problems, usedata to study processes, and continuouslyand rigorously improve every system.

Services offered by the program includethree-day beginning training workshops forschool teams, subsequent training for systemfacilitators, and networking conferences forparticipating schools. In subsequent years,the program will develop TQM training andsupport materials for dissemination.

13

tik

Contact: Maurice PearsallQuality Education CenterSamford UniversityOr lean Bullard Beeson School of Education800 Lakeshore DriveBirmingham, AL 35229205-870-201.-)

These examples demonstrate that support fromthe business community for the application ofTotal Quality Management to education is vitaland that significant training and implementa-don efforts are underway in several states.These efforts in North Carolina and Alabamarepresent significant partnerships of thebusiness, university, and public educationcommunities. These organizations are buildinggrass roots support for a quality approach toeducation by offering leadership, resources andencouragement to schools and districts v.hochoose to adopt a continuous improvementphilosophy. Educators in the SERVE pilot siteshave said repeatedly they are tired of "quick fix"approaches that purportedly make schoolsbetter once and for all. They see the value of along-term, continual improvement approachto change. But it is a mindset or attitude that

takes time and hard work and thus, benefitsfrom both the tangible and intangible aspectsof support offered by organizations such asthose described. For those educators who seeTQM as the next quick fix for education,consider these comments from two educatorsin the SERVE TQM project.

4

There are some schools and school systemsthat I know have gone into quality man-agement and thrown it out at about a two-year point because they saw it as a pro-gram that you pick up and put in. You gothrough ten steps and everything's fixed.And that's not what this is. It's a wholebelief system, it's a ph ilosoph N, and, as I seeit, it's almost a maturing, growth kind ofprocess.

In listening to what businesses have said,even after ten years, some of them feel thatthey are a three on a scale of ten. Thuconstantly have to remind yourself not togive up. It's going to Ilan! to he a constant,incremental movement toward qualitr.Mu don't have a bottom line approach toit.

1 4

Total Quality Managemen notnew. Since the 1950s, it has beenused widely in Japan, based on the

influence of Dr. W Edwards Deming andothers. The success of TQM in Japan drew theattention of this country's corporate players.Bonstingl (1992) describes a 1980 NBC docu-mentary entitled "If Japan Can, Why Can't We?"as the beginning of efforts to apply TQM in theUnited States.

HAPTER

An Overview ofuality Management

The program focused on the work Deming had donein Japan, and the ways his teachings had helped thepostwar Japanese economy to rebuild with dedicationto quality and continuous improvement. Themorning after the broadcast, Deming's phone beganto ring off the hook as Ford, General Motors, and ahost of other American companies sought his help,immediately if not sooner (pg. 18).

This interest in TQM among business andindustry has continued throughout the1980s and 1990s. However, the application ofTQM to educational organizations is rela-tively new. Many of the districts who areconsidered leaders in managing improve-ment within a TQM framework began theirefforts in the late 1980s and early 1990s(Frazier, In Press). As an indicator of interestin this approach, over 1,000 administratorshave joined the American Association ofSchool Administrator's Total Quality Net-work (A.A.S.A., 1801 N. Moore., Arlington. VA,22209).

This chapter provides a brief introduction to..the concepts and principles of TQM.

TQM and Site-BasedManagement: A Good FitEmbedded in much of the recent literatureabout school reform is the concept of site-basedmanagement. Until the advent of site-baseddecision making, many schools and districtshad top-down, hierarchical managementstructures that had limitations given theimportance of staff buy-in and commitmentwhen school improvement is attempted.Recent changes in many states have given localschool districts more flexibility and authorityto affect public education. Consequently, it iscritical that schools and districts equip them-selves to handle the increased responsibility.

In a recent study of the implementation of site-based management (SBM) in 12 schools, Hatry etal (1993) define SBM.

Under SBM, individual schools, their teachers,parents, and sometimes others (such as students, non-instruct ional personnel, and corn mu nit y representa-tives) are given increased authority over one or moreresponsthil it ie.s, including the school budget, curricu-lum and instruction, and school staffing. The basichypothesis is that such decentralization to the schoollevel will stimulate organizational renewal,strengthen school- wide planning, raise the morale

and motivation of school staff stimulate instruc-tional improvement or innovations, foster develop-ment of characteristics associated with effectiveschools, and improve student achievement (pg.195).

As implied by this quote, SBM is not aboutdecentralization of all functions to the schoollevel, but a matter of finding the proper bal-ance between those functions that are bestperformed when centralized (i.e., transporta-tion, purchasing) and those best performed atthe school level. Carl Glickman (1993), thedirector of the League of Professional Schools, acollaboration of over 60 schools in Georgiacommitted to site-based management andschool improvement, categorizes the kinds ofschool decision-making that have occurredwith SBM:

A Zero-impact kinds of decisions includethose about parking spaces and bus duties.

Minimal impact decisions include disciplinepolicies, parent programs, and in-servicedays.

Core impact decisions have to do withcurriculum, staff development, peer coach-ing, and student assessment.

Comprehensive impact decisions includethose about school budget, hiring, staffassignments, and personnel evaluations.

Glickman (1993) suggests that too much timespent on zero or minimal impact decisions maycause a school to lose sight of its purpose. Healso suggests that total control over compre-hensive impact decisions may not help a schoolimprove if it has not first worked through thecore impact decisions about curriculum,student assessment, and staff development.Thus, the kinds of decisions a school chooses tofocus on are critical to the school improvementprocess. A second aspect of decision-making isthe quality of decisions made. TQM can lead toimprovements in both the kinds and quality ofdecisions made.

Several states in the Southeast have activelyencouraged site-based management t h rough

legislation and policy initiatives requiring theformation of school improvement councils.The North Carolina Department of PublicInstruction has been studying the success ofSBM efforts in the state. SERVE has helped funda second phase of the original study, which willbecome a SERVE report. However, the findingsof the initial study are relevant here (SpecialReport (1994): Site-Based Management in NorthCarolina, North Carolina Department of PublicInstruction).

In a survey mailed to 3,000 principals, teachers,and parents, more than 60 percent of all threegroups had a favorable impression of site-basedmanagement. However, only half of the teach-ers and 60 percent of the principals felt pre-pared to effectively participate on a site-basedteam. In addition, only about half of theteachers indicated that they felt that SBM hadbeen effectively implemented at their school.

Subsequent focus groups throughout the stateidentified some of the problem areas.

A There was a perception that importantdecisions had been made at higher levelsand handed down in traditional top-downmanagement style leaving schools with fewor no meaningful decisions to make whichmight impact student performance.

Respondents expressed a need for betterunderstanding of the structure and pro-cesses involved in making site-based man-agement work. For many, it seemed to be aterm in search of a framework.

A Another theme expressed was a lack ofpreparation by previous training or leader-ship experience to effectively manage orparticipate in a site-based managementstructure.

The first problem with SBM implementationpoints to the importance with any attempt tochange the power structure for those in powerto buy-in to giving up power. This commit-ment to trust decision-making to those withresponsibility for doing the work is a require-

ment for both site-based management andTotal Quality approaches.

The second identified barrier points out thatsite-based management stresses the importanceof local control over important decisions butthat just saying that the locus of decision-making needs to change isn't enough. Guidanceabout issues that need to be considered inmaking this happen is needed. TQM can providea guiding framework through its emphasis oncontinuous improvement, effective teamwork,data-based decision-making, and analysis from aprocess and whole system perspective. Thecomponents represent a vision for what manage-ment under SBM might look like and a commonlanguage for a district to use across schools.District leaders can be proactive rather thanreactive about what SBM means in their setting.

It should be noted that TQM is not the onlyframework for SBA Others articulate similarcomponents but name or organize themdifferently. For example. Glickman (1993)provides a school renewal framework thatincludes: a written covenant (agreed uponprinciples of learning that provide a consis-tency of purpose), a charter (in the form of aconstitution which specifies how staff will beinvolved in the governance process at theschool), and the critical-study process (a system-atic way of collecting data and reviewingprogress). However, TQM has the advantage ofbeing a framework that is understood by thebusiness community.

As the third finding suggests, training is a majorissue in SBM. Educators traditionally have notbeen trained to work in teams, resolve conflicts,collect data, and analyze organizationalstrengths and weaknesses. Thus, there is a clearneed for exposure to management approachessuch as TQM and training in new skills (team-work, data analysis) that will help educators usetheir new power effectively to improve studentlearning.

The rest of this chapter describes the TotalQuality framework for managing improve-ment in an organization. It is important topoint out that some schools or districts which

have been involved in site-based managementfor awhile may have evolved into managementapproaches that match the TQM philosophywithout calling their approach TQM. In thesecases, learning more about TQM may providevalidation and language for a managementapproach already in place.

Problems withManaging by ResultsRegardless of who is making decisions, manage-ment style can be examined in light of whetherthe focus is on delivering quality services tostudents (improving the learning process) or onhigher outputs (test scores) with little discus-sions about the way in which students experi-ence the work they do in schools. In the era ofaccountability, the most typical approach tomanaging school improvement has beenmanagement by results. The visibility andemphasis on state-mandated tests has increaseddramatically (Bond,1994). Because state-man-dated test scores are publicly reported andoften the basis for accreditation, all but thehighest scoring districts are under pressure toimprove their averages.

In a recent SERVE policy report (A New Frame-work for State Accountability Systems) that lookedat the impact of state accountability systems,the author argues that trying to force improve-ment by embarrassing districts with low scoresis not working. These districts typically respondwith defeat, low morale, and paralysis and theytend to face a whole range of social, economic,and health problems that can not easily beremedied to produce higher test scores. Rather,they need a commitment to long-term, incre-mental improvement in the quality of services.

Because of the power of state testing programs,schools often focus their improvement effortssolely on raising these scores. The weakness ofthis approach is that it often leads to short-term, superficial improvement efforts (e.g.,improve students test-taking skills) ratherthan in-depth analysis of the real strengths andweak nesses of t he organizational processes a ndprograms.

In The Team Handbook for Educators, Scholtes etal (1994) outline some of the problems of thisfocus on results (i.e., raising test scores):

L ooking good begins to take precedenceover long-term organizational health. Thepressure to raise test scores can demoralizeboth teachers and students who feel theyare doing the best they can.

Fear of failure and paralysis in regard tochange can emerge. Faculty may becomeoverly controlling in their relationshipswith students. They may be fearful oftaking any chances or of trying anythingnew in the classroom for fear scores will godown further.

The results emphasis leads to a focus oncontrolling or forcing learning rather thanfacilitating learning. Thus, students are seenas obstacles, rather than as partners. Theneeds of students and the community takea back seat to the need for higher test scores.

TQM: An Alternative toManaging by ResultsApplying TQM to education suggests thatstudent outcomes are improved by workingon processes that impact the learning environ-ment of the school. The purpose becomes oneof providing teaching and learning processesthat meet or exceed the quality standards ofthe community, not of providing a teachingand learning service that results in higher testscores regardless of the amount of real learningand motivation that occurs. The goal is tostudy and improve every aspect of the schoolsystem's processes, not just add a programbecause it might improve test scores.

In The Team Handbook for Educators, Scholtes etal (1994) use a triangle concept to show themain components of the TQM approach. Thet hree corners are described as follows (pp. 1-4).

C)ne corner represents quality as defined by thecustomer, for that is where the new focus must be.In the context of an education process, the transla-tion of the omcept of -customer- is complex and is

I.

related at each letvl of the systerncla.ssrown,school, district office, Iants comm unit r to theparticular process with which the person's work isassociated. It is crucial to remember that theproduct is the education that students receive, notthe students themselves.

Quality As DefinedBy Customer

Scientific All OneApproach Team

A second corner of the triangle represents thescientific or data-based approach to studying pro-cesses, a strategy that leads to long-lasting, funda-mental improvements. The third corner representseveryone working together all as one team to learnhow to apply these principles. These three function asa three-legged stool: when they function together, theyare exceedingly stable. When even one element ismis.sing, the result is disaster. Each must be linked tothe others for the success of all.

Although various authors treat TQM in aslightly different manner, there are somecommon themes which are described brieflybelow. The TQM themes are very consistentwith themes from the Effective Schools litera-ture.

The kinship between VC Edwards Deming's opera-tional philosophy of management (TQM) and thebasic operational tenets of the effective schoolsin ovement is truly striking. Both represent a bundleof proven management principle's and associatedimplementation processes which, when properlyimplemented, result in significant improvement invalued organizational aims (Lezotte, pg. 5, Creat-ing the Total Quality Effective School).

1. A primary focus on customersatisfaction.The idea of customer satisfaction as a drivingforce is central to quality management. A focuson actively working to examine and meet the

needs of customers may be a novel idea tOrmany schools and districts which have beenorganized around values of efficiency, stan-dardization. and control rather than respon-siveness. Although the concept of "customer"can mean different things to different people,one interpretation of external customers in aneducational setting are those who depend onthe successfully educated student (business,higher education, and the corn iMI nity). In thisdefinition, students and parents are partnerswith schools in developing students to thepoint that they satisfy external customers. Partof the process of creating a customer focus in aschool or district might be to develop or im-prove relationships with business, highereducation, and the community in general andbegin dialogues with these external customersabout the kind of skills needed by graduates.

In addition to external customers, it is helpfulto think about internal customers, thosepersons who are next in line to receive yourwork. For example, each grade level is a cus-tomer of preceding grade levels. Thus, a goalmight be to improve the communicationbetween grade levels, departments. or feederschools. A quote worth thinking about in thisregard is:

Education is not something that goes on in isolatedclassnonns, but in schools. What ultimatelY matters isnot what one teacher gives to one group of st talents atone p( >in t in time but what stUdentS acquire overtwelve or thirteen years, as they pass back and forthbetween classn)oms and from grade to grade andhuilding to building. What ultimatelr matters is howeach teacher's efforts fit together with the efforts ofothers (Shedd and Bacharach, 1991),

Finally, cuqomers can he thought of as theyrelate to specific services. For example, schoolprincipals are customers of thesuperintendent's leadership, direction, andassistance. The customer for student reportcards are parents, other school personnel, andstudents. In particular improvement efforts,discussions about who the customer will he,how they might he involved in the improve-ment proces,,, and what t heir needs are can heext rumely heneficial. The glue t hat holds all t he

discussions together are the shared beliefsabout goals and purposes.

2. Constant dedication to aphilosophy of continuousimprovement.This component has several related threads.First, there is a realization that change or im-provement is typically incremental, not imme-diate and visible to all. Change evolves throughbetter understanding and understandingevolves through conversations and discussions.In a SERVE report (1994) entitled OvercomingBarriers to School Reform in the Southeast, stop andstart reform is identified as a barrier to effectiveschool reform at the state level. As one teacherwho participated in this study noted:

The stoplstart approach to reform reallyworks against finding out what works andwhat doesn't. We throw out an e ffective oldprogram in favor of an untested new one...Thus, l(.1 yea is after the reforms began,teachers and administrators are under-standably "improvement weary- of abruptshifts in policY initiatives. As one centraloffice staff member put it. A this too shallpass' mentality is to() common.

The answer for start/stop reform is for a leaderto commit to a continuous improvementphilosophy. As problems are identified andreforms are attempted, these reforms should beevaluated and continuously refined. improved.or rethought. In this cyclical improvementprocess, teams learn to make decisions based onresearch and data, rather than just hunches, tolook for root causes of problems rather thanreact to superficial symptoms, and to seek long-term, meaningful changes to the system ratherthan quick fixes. Leaders can signal theircommitment to the value of continuousimprovement in a variety of ways (visihle,active participation with improvement teams,providing resources and incentives for teammeetings and data collection, walking the talk,etc.).

19

3. Establishing the process ofcontinuous improvement(PDCA).In TQM terms, the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)Cycle is the workhorse of Improvement efforts.Improvement depends on the evaluation andmodification of processes. A process is a se-quence of tasks. For example, developing alesson plan is a process (with a sequence of stepsleading to the product). While most peoplethink of planning as something that takesplace before a new process is initiated, it can bemore generally thought of as any idea thatmight improve a process. A plan can be devel-oped relative to an existing policy or program.Plans to change processes should reflect a beliefthat the change represents a more effective wayof fulfilling the school/district mission. Cus-tomer needs and other data should be consid-ered in developing plans.

Before the plan is activated (Do). some thoughtshould be given to the kinds of information ordata that will be collected to determine howwell the plan is being implemented. As theplan is implemented, data are gathered toinform future modifications. This evaluation(Check) may reveal successful implementation,or more likely, implementation with someproblems. A lack of data collection at imple-mentation is why many educators feel at themercy of the newest "fad."

Depending on the evaluated success of themonitored process, revisions might need to bemade (Act). The process has come full circle andis at the plan (Plan) stage again. Improvement ofprograms and processes is a never-ending cyclethat should not he considered a burden, butpart of the natural process of organizationalimprovement.

It should also be mentioned that as teams workthrough this cycle, TQM suggests using avariety of management tools such as flowcharts, cause-effect diagrams, data tables, andcheck sheets (Scholtes et al, lo)-t) that help infocusing discussions and understanding theproblem or initiative under study. In additionto t hese management tools, Scholt es et al (10Q4)

describe tools for making teamwork moreproductive (brainstorming, multivoting,developing consensus, nominal group tech-niques). Tools for conflict resolution andplanning effective meetings can also be found.

4. Understanding how thb ;..artsof the system fit together.One way of looking at what goes on in schoolsis that every activity is part of a larger process.The school is a dynamic system of interrelatedprocesses (e.g.. hiring, mentoring. evaluatingnew staff; providing professional developmentopportunities for tenured staff; developing thecurriculum; grading students; reportingprogress to parents; handling discipline prob-lems, etc.). Each process should be identifiedand continuously improved.

Better processes Mean better quality and improvedlearning envirtm men ts, which mean l(mger-lastingimproyemen6 that result in better-educated students.

lwn people begin to look at processes, they. will,often for the first time, develop a unified languageand understand ing of what their roles are. S( une( mecan talk about specific steps in a process, and elvry-one will understand where those steps fit int() thelarger picture. (Scholtes, et al., 1994, pg. 2-2).

Getting teachers and others talking aboutprocesses unites them in a common endeavor.Teaching a class is a system that involves manyinterrelated processes (e.g., setting goals, devel-oping a lesson plan. developing assessmentsincluding questioning strategies). All of theprocesses involved in teaching are interrelat ed.It is hard to change goals without also chang-ing instructional methods and assessments.When a whole system is working well together.it might 1.1e called aligned and/or optimized.Proces'e and systems allow teachers in a schoolto see the big picture of how their classes aresimilar or different and ultimately. how alltheir efforts fit together toward achieving acommon vision of student success.

It is also important to emphasize the word"total" in total qualit y. Quality k a criterionthat can be applied to everything, the organiza-t ion does, so t hat st riving for qualit v he( ome, a

daily effort both in the classroom and out. Itencompasses everything from holding qualityteam meetings to quality communicationswith parents to quality in terms of schoolcleanliness. Establishing a quality culture isgradual and happens in conversations, model-ing, and being open and asking for feedback.

5. Effective use of teams andemployee involvement.While all individuals bear a responsibility towork on improvements, TQM recognizes thevalue of using a team approach to problem-solving. Gains in quality can result from thepooling of ideas, expertise, skills, knowledge,and approaches that teams bring to the table. Asecond outcome of a team approach is thesupport, understanding, and commitment thatoften results from teams working together. "Asa spirit of teamwork invades the educational system,people everywhere will begin working togethertowards qualityno harriers, no factions, "all oneteam" moving together in the same direction"(Scholtes, pg. 2-11).

Moving from a highly individualistic or com-petitive culture to a cooperative, team-orientedculture may not happen overnight. Staff needtraining and time to work together on projects.A key aspect of TQM implementation centerson providing teacher training and opportuni-ties (time) to work cooperatively in teams onproblems and improvements.

6. Quality leadership.Leading involves two fundamental processes:"getting followers to value particular goals andhelping them identify the means for attaining thegoals" (Ames & Ames, 1993, pg. 1133).

"It has become more and more common to read andhear that the essential factor underlying effectiveschools is an "ethos" or "culture" of excellence, andthat effective school leaders are culture builders"(Sashkin & Sashkin,1993, pg. 100). Culture isoften thought of as the values, goals, andmeaning of the organization that its membersshare.

,

According to Scholtes, the most frequent causeof failure in any TQM effort is uninvolved orindifferent administrators. Staff, acting on itsown, can not create a problem-solving, risk-taking, continuously improving culture. TQMencourages administrators to control and blameless, and support and facilitate more. They needto identify obstacles to successful work groupsand ask themselves how staff feels about theirwork. They must constantly model sharing ofpower. A central office can "talk" TQM, but if inmeetings they dictate rather than solicit inputfrom principals, they aren't walking the talk.Similarly, if a principal is encouraging teachersto become facilitators of student learning in theclassroom rather than authority figures, but infaculty meetings communicates by lecturingand laying down the law, then the principal isnot walking the talk. It is the leader's responsi-bility to continuously model "asking for input."

It is the role of administration to maintain thefocus on improving the quality of services,rather than on simply raising test scores. Anadministrator that agrees to allow the sciencedepartment to try a new curriculum but withthe warning that if state test scores go down, thenew approach will be ditched, is not supportingquality improvement, but rather managementby fear. It i the role of administration to driveout fear. In a TQM approach to leadership,administrators encourage creative thinking,risk-taking, work in self-directed teams, and aculture in which there is mutual support foreveryone's continuous improvement, whichultimately leads to better results.

Changes in leadership are a fact of life at alllevels of the educational enterprise. Thesechanges contribute to "start-stop" reform. Thereis little a school system can do about constantchanges in leadership. However, school districtscould have in place a system that allows reformssuch as TQM to continue to develop. If a schoolboard is knowledgeable and supportive of TQM,if a well-thought out development process isarticulated and agreed upon, and if a criticalmass of staff are trained and providing leader-ship, then, perhaps changes in superintendentswill have less impact on the implementationprocess.

7. An improvement versus"gotcha" culture for students.The six aspects of TQM described above dem-onstrate an approach to the organizationalmanagement of change, through problem-solving teams led by a supportive leader. TQMas applied in most organizations is an invitationto think differently about the managementstructures and the relationships betweenmanagers and staff. In education, it is also aninvitation to think differently about therelationships between teachers and students.Teachers' instructional and assessment prac-tices, in part, determine the culture of theclassroom. Are teachers' relationships withstudents characterized more by controlling,threatening, ranking. and punishing or sup-porting, helping, and coaching? Can the class-room learning environment become onewhere student input, choice, and self-evalua-tion are commonplace?

As Bonstingl (1992, pg. 29) has put it:

It baffles me that the process of learning in today'sclassrooms so infrequently includes reflection byteachers and students on the optimization of thelearning they do together. The routine is always thesame: Begin the unit, teach the unit, give the studentsa test, correct the test, return the test, review the"right" answers with the class, collect the tests, andrecord the grades. Then moue on to the next unit. Ifwe continue this practice, how will students learn touse experiences from past units to improve the workthey do on future units? To help students engage inconstant improvement, we must make the teacher-studen t learning systenl the had point of instructionso that the waY teachers and students interact in thelearning process can be continually fine-tune,,l.

As a well-known researcher in student motiva-tion has said: "The sine qua non by which schoolreform must be judged is a transfOrma t ion of theculture of the school that will lead to enhancedstudent motivation and learning" (Maehr & Buck,1993, pg. 53). Other researchers (Ames and Ames.1993, pg.129) go on to describe that culture:

Our work suggests that there is a normative or idealin, a ivati(mal state for the school learning en mon-

men t. We call this environment mastery oriented.Vi/hether student, teacher, or parent, when anindividual is master,' oriented, he or she is focused onthe process of learning as it relates to new sk ills andimproving his or her own level of competence or skill.Underlying this mastery- orientation is a belief thateffort will lead to progress and learning. In a mastery-oriented environment, the emphasis is placed onworking hard, taking on challenges, learning newthings, and making progress. Value is placed onlearning and it is understood that the pursuit ofchallenging goals involves making mistakes along theway. When mistakes or problems are encountered,problem-solving strategies are enacted and the goal-striving efforts are maintained.

More often, even though all schools talk as iflearning by all students is a primary goal,student management, instructional, andassessment practices are carried out in such away that students are likely to fear failure andview the school culture as a contest to see whois the best and that being better gives higherstatus.

The last common theme found in educationalwritings about TQM is that how teachersmanage the student management (discipline),learning, and assessment processes in theirclassrooms and how schools label their stu-dents as successful or unsuccessful may be themost promising application for Total QualityManagement. The TQM philosophy of con-tinual improvement and employee involve-ment, when applied to students, should leadfaculty to a real consideration of the conse-quences of their approaches to discipline,teaching, and assigning and grading studentwork. One must ask if faculty interactions withstudents in the classroom support a life-long"yearning to learn" in st udents or lead tofrustration and discouragement that precludesfurther learning.

These are some of the common themes of TQM.In supporting six sites in studying and applyingthese themes to their context, we hoped toinform others of what these applications looklike. The next chapter summarizes the imple-mentat ion efforts of t lw six SERVE Pilot site.

22

HAPTER 3

Unders ding ImplementationDescriptions of SER E'sTQM Pilot SitesIn the 1992-93 school year, four schools and twoschool systems were selected as SERVE-spon-sored TQM pilots. Brief descriptions of the sitesand their applications of Total Quality Manage-ment provide a context for consideration of thestudy findings in Chapter 4.

Description of the Six SiteContextsSERVE selected one pilot site in each of its sixsoutheastern states. Four schools, in closeproximity, were ide Itified who would worktogether with consultants from BaylessAssociates and Westat. Two middle schools,one junior high school, and one elementaryschool, representing a range of demographics,were chosen based on interest. They volun-teered to participate with little to no priorknowledge of TQM. The schools had theapproval of district offices to participate inthis pilot project but none of the districtswere actively involved in implementing TQMdistrict wide. Only one school/district had ahistory of site-based management and threeof the schools had no operational schoolleadership or improvement team prior to theproject. All four had an interest in developinga more participatory, school managementapproach.

In North and South Carolina, SERVE \vas awareof two districts vho had leaders who were

interested in TQM. Because of this demonstratedinterest from the top leaders, SERVE contractedwith these two districts to see what could belearned from efforts initiated from the districtoffice.

All six sites received funding for three years tocover training or an outside facilitator, teacherrelease time, and travel costs associated withimplementation.

Description of Training/Facilitation Provided tothe SitesA key to successful TQM implementationmentioned by all SERVE sites was the recogni-tion that TQM is complex enough that it cannot be successfully implemented as a result of astand-alone, one-shot, two- or three-day trainingprogram. Staff.need opportunities to applyconcepts and receive feedback and support on aregular basis. All of the pilot sites recognizedthat implementing TQM required ongoingfacilitation and support. Time for ongoingdialogue and thoughtful review and reflectionwere critical aspects of implementation. Becauseof the importance of learning by doing, all sitesidentified teams to participate in training andimplementation efforts. These teams metregularly. In addition, the principals at ,.11 pilotsites were actively involved in the traini:'gprocess.

-23 BEST COPY AVAILABLk.

1

Who was chosen to participate?Teams from the four school sites were selected ina variety of ways. In some cases, the principalknew what area of improvement that theywould like to target and thus, picked a teamthat would best handle the targeted area. Inother cases, when there was no preconceivedimprovement focus, principals either selected ateam or asked for volunteers. In most cases,teams were chosen that were representative ofgrade levels or subject areas. None of the fourschool teams were functioning prior to theproject. In one school with a school improve-ment council, the team was not selected toparticipate, probably because the amount of itsexisting duties precluded the kind of commit-ment that ivould be required to study and applyTQM.

Both of the districts developed central officeleadership teams who were the first to betrained. Subsequently, both districts elected toidentify three pilot schools for participation. InRock Hill, the three schools chosen were a feedersystem (elementary, middle, high schools). InJohnston County, two middle schools and oneelementary school were chosen by the centraloffice to participaze.

How was training/facilitationprovided at the sites?

1. Four school sites. Under a contract withSERVE, training and ongoing facilitation forTQM teams from the four school pilot sites(AL, MS, FL, GA) was provided by a three-member team of Westat consultants, onehaving primary experience in industry andeducational research, with the other twomembers of the consulting team havingbackgrounds as educators.

In the first year, the trainers met with the teamsfor one day each month and covered such topicsas TQM philosophy, TQM tools (e.g., flow charts,data charts, etc.), curriculum development, andteaming skills (e.g., developing consensus,effective meetimzs,

The facilitator/trainers helped the teams selectareas to study in the first year. As teams selectedproblem areas to study, they were able to usetheir SERVE funds to obtain supplementaltraining or consulting from other sources.

The four schools continued their relationshipwith their Westat facilitator team for the nexttwo project years with the role changing some-what. In the first year, the trainers set agendas inconsultation with team members, providedreading materials, and decided on topics tocover. In subsequent years, the trainers/ facilita-tors functioned more as support to the TQMteams, helping them analyze and interpret data.They also brought the four school teams to-gether several times each year to share experi-ences, which helped to broaden understandingsof school functioning and TQM.

2. Johnston County School District, NorthCarolina. The Johnston County, NorthCarolina school system selected a singleconsultant/ facilitator having a backgroundin education to work with the districtleadership team, all principals in the system,and the three pilot schools (which benefitedfrom SERVE funding).

Prior to the first year of implementation, thethree pilot school principals went through anintense week of TQM training with the consult-ant. They then introduced the need for theapproach to the staff and identified ten schoolteams for which teachers could volunteer toparticipate. All faculty were encouraged to beinvolved. The consultant provided the basicTQM training (one day) to the teams. She alsoworked with the grade level teams during theirplanning periods. However, the thrust of thetraining was on TQM principles and beliefs, onplanting the seed. Since the principals hadreceived intensive training prior to the schoolteam training, they facilitated the applicationprocess rather than the consultant.

In the second year, the consultant met once amonth with all principals in the system andwit h the central office. During this year, thedist rict iantzed superintendents which tempo-rarily slowed the momentum of the efforts.

Under the new superintendent, the districtchanged consultants and entered into anagreement with Pinellas County Schools inFlorida, a national leader in Total QualityEducation, to provide training and guidance toall schools in the system. The leadership teamsof the 27 schools in the district received threedays of training from Pinellas County. Thetraining was an overview rather than a facili-tated "learning by doing" exercise.

Principals at the three pilot schools continuedto facilitate the application of TQM to the workof their school teams. Linda Stevens, the princi-pal at Smithfield Middle School, has developed amanual for her school teams to use entitledTeaming: A guide for using teamwork in a qualityschool setting. It has sections on team functioningin general, a description of the purpose andfunctions of the seven cross-functional teamsestablished, a description of the goals and workof the grade level teams, and a description of anideal team at work. Such leadership by theprincipal is critical if a total quality culture is tobe establisheo. Because TQM has many compo-nents to consider, it is difficult for a staff toimplement the ideas subsequent to a several-daytraining session without some kind of support(either from internal resources or externalfacilitators).

In the summer of 1995, 50 teachers from thethree pilot schools participated in a trainingsession on toe application of TQM to the class-room. These tc2chers will train the rest of theschool staff in these kinds of applications, aconscious effort by the principals to give thestaff ownership over their professional develop-ment. The principals also developed ongoingstaff development plans so that new teachers areprovided an orientation to teaming and quality.

3. Rock Hill School District Three, SouthCarolina. The TQM training effort in RockHill, South Carolina, started at the top withthe superintendent and several staff attend-ing training in TQM along with some busi-nesses. After receiving SERVE funding, asecond level of training began for the threeschool teams selected for the pilot phase.

Several days of training were provided byfacilitator/ trainers (The Gahagan-JacobusCompany in Columbia, South Carolina) whoconceptualized a two-pronged training ap-proach to understanding TQM: I) tools andtechnology and 2) human relations skills. Thehuman relations or people skills are criticalbecause of the need for teanis to work effectivelytogether. The tools and technology help theteams to do their work more efficiently andeffectively. This two-pronged training was verysuccessful.

Subsequent to the training, central office staff,the trainer/ facilitators, and others providedfacilitation for ongoing team project meetings.A central office staff person was assigned toeach of the pilot teams to help facilitate theinitial meetings and to provide ongoing assis-tance. The support and connection with thecentral office remained constant and visible. Inaddition to the training for the pilot schoolteams, all principals in the system have subse-quently been trained.

Besides supporting TQM at the three schoolsover the three-year period, a district-wideTQM steering team has evolved into a strate-gic planning team of 40 people. District-wideplanning teams focused on six major areas(technology, school climate, safety, staffdevelopment, curriculum, and collaboration).Rather than continue on with extensive TQMtraining for teams from all schools, the dis-trict-wide staff development planning teamis rethinking the staff development functionso that new teachers, and then all teacherswill have access to information needed tochange the culture of the classroom. Therehas been a shift in emphasis from trainingfaculty teams in TQM to providing opportu-nities for teachers to rethink the classroomculture towards one that is more empoweringand inviting for students.

The district recently (1995) piloted a newteacher summer institute for 70 teachersentering the system which focused on ways toempower students (develop ownership), waysto assess students differently in ways thatencourage success, and the importance of an

25

inviting classroom environment. This insti-tute supports the kinds of culture changesthat are the ultimate application of TQMconcepts to the classroom. At some point, allteachers in the system will have access to thekind of training provided to new teachers.Through this mechanism, "good" teaching isdefined and modeled for all teachers.

What did the teams do?The process of continuous improvement is asimple one: plan (which involves identifyingand studying problems, developing strategiesand an evaluation plan); implement thestrategies and monitor the implementationprocess; make revisions and improvements;collect more data; etc. Although the process isstraight forward, it is time-consuming anddoes not easily fit into the tight time con-straints of teaching schedules. SERVE fund-ing helped to provide the "time" for teams togo through this cycle. As can be seen incomments in the next chapter, this experi-ence was eye-opening. For example, twoteachers commented:

A real big difference for me personally and professionally has been the use_ of a process, instead of justreacting out of my gut, which I think teachers havedone forever.

All the years of testing and low scores in some areas,this is the first time I think we ever sat down and said,"Oka N, 'V do theY have low scores in this area?" andwe find out from studying the problem that tee don'tteach what is tested.

Selecting a problem to study is not easy, espe-cially given the need for team agreement andthe lack of an established culture for talkingpublicly about "problems" and needed improve-ments. In some schools, the principal had avision or "problem" in mind for the team totackle and led the study process. In other cases,the choice was left up to the team.

Descriptions of the projects undertaken aremore fully described in the Appendix. Theyrange from a study of at-risk student successwhich led to a plan to reduce the level of

t racking at the school to a classroom obser \tion st udy of teachers' mat h quest ion i ngstrategies. Another school st udied and t allected data on the effectiveness of a t en vealold Instructional Management Syst em usedby the district and a not hei studied 'tailmorale. An elementary ',Chao! (earn sithe effectiveness of teacher-parentconferencing. These project , cl ea rl \ we rt. notsuperficial.

Summary ofImplementation Acrossthe Six SitesThere is no "right way" to implement TQMDifferent contexts require different approaL hesbut others can learn from the cammonal it icsand differences in the implementation st rat egie,used. We encourage the reader to learn moreabout implementation hy reading t he Appendix.

What were some commonalitiesamong the sites?The teams which were formed I) met regularl \ 2)

needed initial leadership from inside (in samecases the principal) or outside the school (. ansultants, central office staff) to support them inapplying the TQM process and tools; ICU

data to inform deci 4) developed a t otnmon language centered around qua lit \ and acustomer-focus; and 5) experienced facult \empowerment in the sense of opening upownership for school functioning and stiL 4. cs,

What were some differencesbetween the sites?Some school leaders are at a paint where t he\ ;lieready and willing to let go of power, at hers atemore hesitant and vacillate between let t int.! izoand controlling. Sonie prin ipals were read \ tarTQM because it provided a needed t ranwwarkand set of beliefs that helped structure martfaculty involvement in school decision makingOther principals were ready for part, at I 01,such as the customer focus, hut not far at hers.such as a systemic focus

How teams were formed and how the wholefaculty was involved and informed was differentat every site reflecting the complexity of choicesinvolved in these decisions. It is clear that in someschools, a "we-they" type of resentment developedbecause of how the initial TQM teams wereselected and their special status. This whole issueof how all staff can be involved and/or informedat some level so that TQM is not owned by oneteam is a very important consideration for thecontinuity of the effort.

Another difference between the sites is howmuch of TQM has been built into the way theschool operates and thus, has become part of theorganizational structure and culture. Three ofthe four school sites had a change in principalsin the three years. Both district sites experienceda change in superintendents during this timeperiod. Obviously, the implementation process ismade somewhat more difficult if this turnoveroccurs, especially to the degree that a newadministrator has different beliefs about man-agement and the kinds of issues that are appro-priate for staff to study than the "old" adminis-trator.

At another level, one might look at how manydifferent teams were operating in the school andhow effectively to produce customer satisfac-tion. A school which had grade level, curricu-lum. governance, and special services teamsstudying problem areas might be consideredfurther along than a school which had only oneteam studying a special problem in a time-limited fashion. The more teams that operate,the more opportunity staff have to participatein the improvement process and develop com-mon goals and beliefs.

Finally, the sites differ in terms of whetherongoing professional development efforts havebeen planned to continue to support discus-sions of quality components; that is, the degreeto which ongoing professional development isbeing designed to continue opportunities forteachers to examine beliefs and values. Forexample, one district is piloting a district-widenew teacher institute, which although not builttotally on TQM concepts, reflects the district'sbest thinking about good teaching practices,

which emerged at least partially from theirexperiences with TQM.

Reflecting back on the previous chapter aboutthe main components of TQM, few of theschools had effectively implemented all theaspects listed. However, each site has a story thatillustrates the application of the components.

Customer-FocusThis component of TQM is demonstrated byaction: at several sites. At Gulf Shores MiddleSchool in Gulf Shores, Alabama, the study ofTQM and site-based decision-making led to theformation of a site council. Parents, students, orteachers with a problem or a suggestion fill outan agenda request form and turn it into theoffice. The site council has a four-memberadvisory sub-committee which reviews theforms in the order received and makes a decisionabout whether the item is a school-wide con-cern. If it is, it goes on the site council agendawhere it is discussed and a decision made. Theaction is communicated to the school commu-nity through a newsletter, giving school cus-tomers a forum for airing concerns. In addition, afaculty/staff forum has been formed to hearteacher/staff complaints. The faculty electedrepresentatives to form the committee. Any staffmember with a complaint goes to a representa-tive and the committee then makes recommen-dations to the principal about actions needed.

Johnston County Schools in North Carolinatook involvement of the community to a newlevel. It put together staff teams (teachers,administrators, etc.) to conduct adult role modelsessions in the community. They asked smallgroups of people from the community, whatshould a high school studen t look like when he or shegradwites? This information has been reviewedby a district-wide curriculum team and theideas from the community, such as charactereducation, are being incorporated into t hestandard course of study.

Continuous ImprovementPhilosophyW. Fred Scott Elementary School inThomasville, Georgia modeled a continuous

27

improvement philosophy. To kick off theSERVE project, the principal asked the facultyfor volunteers who would agree to spend oneSaturday a month as a TQM team for the nextthree years. The principal encouraged the teamto think of themselves as a curriculum improve-ment team and to focus on those issues thatwould make a difference for students. The teamtook the challenge and chose to study the use ofhigher-order questioning strategies in math. Thestudy involved the entire staff because data wascollected through peenobservations. The princi-pal and team were able to defuse concerns aboutevaluation and convince the staff that it was anopportunity to examine an aspect of teachingwithout being critical of individuals. The datawere analyzed by grade level and school level.

The data indicated that the use of higher-orderquestions in math lessons was limited (77% wereat the knowledge or comprehension level).Rather than being used for blaming, the datawere presented to the faculty as an opportunityfor growth. The whole staff then received avariety of training to support the goal of in-creased use of higher-order questioning. Peerobservations in the following year showedprogress (44% of questions were now at knowl-edge or comprehension level).

In the second year, realizing that math question-ing is partially a function of types of curriculummaterials used, the team decided to pilot a newtextbook more in line with school instructionalgoals. Test results and continued peer observa-tions were used to monitor progress. At the endof the second year, the team became concernedwith improving Social Studies test scores, whichled to a consideration of the state curriculumobjectives and the degree to which they werebeing taught. The team explored the need toimplement more effective classroom assessmentpractices (authentic assessments, portfolios, etc.).Future team plans call for research on low-achieving students in order to design strategiesto better meet their needs.

It should be noted that this school had the"luxury" of continuity of leadership in that itwas the only one of the four school sites that didnot experience a change in leadership in the

three-year period. Principals and staff need atleast three to five years for tangible results inchanging the culture.

Continuous ImprovementProcessEvaluating the implementation and impact ofnew programs and initiatives does not comeeasily to schools but it pays benefits. In Rock HillSchool District Three, one of the four teamscreated to pilot TQM was a district wide teamconsisting of teachers from all levels who wereto focus on the problems of transitions betweenlevels of schooling (elementary to middle andmiddle to high school). After being trained inTQM tools, this team did a needs assessment ofthe transition process. It looked at a variety ofdata such as teacher and student perceptions ofproblems, student fears, extracurricular activi-ties in ninth grade, student grades and disciplinein the transition years (6th and 9th), etc. Theproblem of "climate" was identified. Studentsdid not feel invited into the new school. The sizeof the high school makes it especially difficultto be student friendly.

Meeting regularly, the team developed a range ofstrategies to promote more effective transitions;teacher exchanges (e.g., high school teachers visit8th graders), student tours of the new school ledby other students, traveling trunks for theelementary schools which helped 5th gradestudents understand what they needed to knowfor 6th grade, and better planned orientationsessions developed through the use of parentand student feedback. The team planned forthe district's implementation of these strategiesand then collected implementation and impactdata, based on the key measures identified in theplanning process. Results were more positivefeedback on surveys of students, improvedteacher perceptions, and improved grades,particularly in the 9th grade.

The team has continued to meet at least once ayear to review these data and any neededchanges to programs. The team leader is thedistrict's director of instruction (Linda Allen).The effort and t he evaluation of key measureshas been institutionalized under her direction.

Deer Lake Middle School in Tallahassee isanother school which modeled a rigorousplanning and evaluation process. The TQMteam agreed that their purpose was to supportthose students currently not achieving success.They focused their efforts on improving thequality of delivery services to students identi-fied as "learning disabled" or at-risk. Data col-lected from teachers of "regular" classes indi-cated that many were struggling with meetingthe needs of special needs students. Extensivedata on identified students' academic perfor-mance were also compiled.

The data and team discusSions ultimately led toa significant recommendation to the school's sitecouncil. The recommendation was the elimina-tion of "tracking" of students such that lan-guage arts, social studies, and science classeswould be heterogeneously grouped in grade six.The Site Council agreed and the team developedan implementation and evaluation plan. TheTQM team collected implementation andimpact data on teacher and student perceptions,class enrollments, and grade and test data. Thesefindings were presented to sixth and seventhgrade teacherS. As a result, teachers on theseventh grade teams decided to pilot heteroge-neous grouping during the1995-96 year.

TQM team teachers at Deer Lake felt that asignificant impact of their participation in theSERVE TQM project was the growth in under-standing as a team and as a school of the need tobase decisions on data rather than on intuitionand to continuously monitor the implementa-tion of new strategies.

Systemic FocusAs one principal from Johnston County Schoolsin North Carolina pointed out. "total" qualitymeans thinking about quality as a criterion foreverything that happens in a school or district.Are meetings handled in a quality wa.i; areparents dealt with in a quality way; is mainte-nance handled in a quality way; etc. The threepilot schools (Smithfield Middle, Four OaksMiddle, and Four Oaks Elementary) fromJohnston County made perhaps the mostcomprehensive attempt at instituting teams to

look at all major areas of school functioning.They asked teachers to volunteer for participa-tion on any of ten teams established.

There were seven cross-functional teams (con-sisting of staff from across grades, programs) tocover the major areas of school functioning.There was a leadership team (quality council), atechnology team, a student service team respon-sible for remediation, incentive, and parentinvolvement efforts, a communication teamresponsible for improving internal and externalcommunication, a school climate team thataddresses staff and student morale, a curricu-lum and instruction team which reviews schoolwide needs (emphasizing reading and writingskills in all areas), and an assistance/crisis inter-vention team.

To promote continuous improvement in coresubject areas, one team per grade level wasestablished to meet once per day (and once perweek with the principal) to assess student testdata and formulate instructional strategies. Inaddition to empowering the staff throughteams to help manage the school improvementprocess, these schools are also concerned aboutthe application of the idea of continuousimprovement to students in the classroom andhave sent fifteen teachers per school to betrained. These principals and their staffs arecommitted to looking at the "big picture" ofschool functioning and attempting to apply theidea of quality in a comprehensive way to allaspects of school functioning.

Quality LeadershipTypes of leadership varied across sites. Someprincipals were more convinced of the value ofgiving up power than others. Other differenceswere in decisions to lay out expectations andparameters for team functioning and decision-mak ing up front to the whole faculty (forexample. that the process will take time and willbe work intensive and will not be a "quick fix"):in their willingness to encourage and supportteams in t aking on critical instructional deliv-ery issues; in their willingness to let teams makemistakes and learn from them; and in the levelof vision they had for how teams might be the

workhorses for systemic improvement. All siteswould probably agree that TQM can't be forcedon a reluctant leader. For this reason turnoverin principals could potentially hsve a devastat-ing affect on a TQM effort and s,cil f morale.

Both district sites experienced turnover at thesuperintendent level during the three-yearperiod, leading to a period of transition. Bothdistricts had in place prior to this change idistrict wide leadership team or council, whichmay facilitate the transition. Although in onedistrict, the new superintendent continued theTQM effort, in the other, the effort continued,but as part of a total strategic planning ap-proach.

Improvement Versus "Gotcha"CultureThere is some beginning evidence, at least inindividual classrooms of teachers involved inthe TQM training, that the philosophy ofmoving each student to continually improveand empowering students to apply tools andtake charge of their own learning and goalsetting was happening. Several sites haveprovided support to teachers to attend train-ing sessions in the classroom applications ofTQM. However, all would likely agree thatnurturing this kind of culture among allteachers is a slow, evolving process. Teachers atone school mentioned that teachers mostresistant to change were beginning to noticethat others were moving forward and thatthey were being left behind. Modeling may bea powerful change agent.

What impact can exposure to TQM philosophyand tools have on teachers? One site, MagnoliaJunior High in Moss Point, Mississippi, selectedfive lead teachers to participate as the SERVETQM team. These teachers experienced signifi-cant growth from applying TQM concepts tothe classroom. Some of their comments areshown below:

The main change at this school for the first year wasthe fact that those five teachers started introducingsome of these principles in their classrooms. A lot ofthe students got introduced to TQM.

The biggest thing that affected my teaching is, I try notto let fear occur in my classroom; fear of me, fear of thesubject, fear of failure, fear, period. I try not to let fearexist because I think that's the key. Where fear ispresent, quality isn't.

When students ask, Are we doing this for a grade?, mytendency used to be to say yes or no. Now I say, Youneed to ask yourself what you're going to get out of this,rather than whether I'm taking it for a grade. Andthat's helped the kids a great deal. I do it at the first ofthe year and then kids learn to parrot it. A newstudent will come in and ask, Are we doing this for agrade?, and the kids will respond, No, you're supposedto find out what you're getting out of it. And that'spretty neat for me that the kids are saying it.

One outcome I've noticed from my students is thatthey are more readily accepting responsibility for theirown learning. I've assumed more of a role of facilita-tor. I've allowed them to take more responsibility.

TQM will definitely affect you. If you want to getbetter, it will change you. If it'll change me, it'll changeanybody, because I've been teaching for more thantwenty years and I'm hard-headed, hard to change,and it made me take a strong look at myself

TQM is not a quick fix. Teachers have had so manyquick fixes over the years, they're leery of anythingnew. So I think only if you approach it from thestandpoint that it's not a quick fix, then I thinkteachers will he more receptive to Quality in theirclassrooms.

Now armed with a better understanding of howthe six sites applied TQM to their setting, in thenext chapter, the educators froM the sites reporthow they viewed the experience.

3U

Hik.PTER

Wh the Educators at theix Si es Have to Say?

SEMT commissioned aOiiiat op*rchfirm (Simmons, Boyle, and Assodate's ofChapel Hill, North Carolina) to collect

data from educators at the six sites described inthe previous chapter regarding their perceptionsof implementation, impact, successes, problems,and lessons learned. To meet the study objec-tives, investigators used focus groups, individuali n terviews, and content analysis of focus grouptranscripts as the primary qualitative researchtools. From a series of preliminary telephoneinterviews with school principals, central officestaff and SERVE training consultants, investiga-tors determined who at each site would best beable to provide insight, from a full range ofperspectives, into the implementation of TQM.

Investigators then developed focus groupprotocols and recruited participants. Focusgroups are guided discussions which provideinsight into perceptions, attitudes, apprehen-sions and concerns. The focus group discussionsand interviews were recorded, transcribed, andcontent-analyzed to identify and organizedominant issues.

Focus group discussions were conductedwith the TQNI teams at each of the fourindividual schools.

At the two system sites, the TQM teammembers from each of the participatingschools were comhined into single groups oft welve participants or more.

A To supplement the perspective of the TQMteam members with that of teachers whowere not on the TQM teams, four groupsconsisting of randomly selected teacherswere formed.

Recorded interviews were conducted witheight principals and one central officerepresentative.

The following is a summary of the findingspresented to SERVE in the final report fromSimmons, Boyle, and Associates. Specific com-ments from the focus group and interviewtranscripts have been extracted and interspersedthroughout to illustrate themes.

Findings

1. Participants' Definitions ofTQMWhen asked to define Total Quality Manage-ment, participants mentioned the six compo-nents discussed in the previous chapter, vari-ously speaking in terms of a management orcustomer philosophy, a continuous improve-ment process and a teaming structure.

A. Customer focus. Some delMed TQM in termsof maint aining a customer focus.

)casyn -1(.).N1 works Is because it establishes n.hat

is Some (If them: things that were very

important to our customers as a teacher I would neverhave thought of If it were not for the process of goingthrough all the TQM training and handling theTQM processes as we do, I would never have come upwith what the customer wanted. And no matter what Iwould have done, I would never have come up with thecustomer's needs, nor would I have solved them.

B. C.A.nistant dedication to continuous im-provement. Others focused on the meaning ofcontinuous improvement and the continuousimprovement cycle of planning, implementing,studying, revising rather than complaining andblaming.

I basically feel like TQM is dealing with solvingproblems and the way to go about solving problems isthe Plan, Do, Study, Act part of TQM.

It is an endeavor by the educational community tolearn from the business community how to improveschools, how to provide Total Quality throughout thesystem. That means to continually evaluate yourself,your purposes. your programs, and then to try to makeimprovements based on what your situation is.

I see it as a model for implementing continuousimprovement j011owing some principles and usingsome tools. Gathering data in order to analyze asystem and improve a system and key the improve-ment going.

C. Understanding of how the parts of thesystem fit together. There were fewer commentsabout this aspect of TQM, perhaPs, due to thefact that implementing improvement at asystemic level, looking at all the parts simulta-neously, is an evolving process. Schools typicallystart small in developing the capacity to analyzeand reflect on their functioning. Perhaps thefirst level of this component is simply awarenessthat it is important to think about and talk interms of processes.

It makes N011 real aware of processes and not blamingother people for something not working, and lookingat the process that's involved, rather than looking at theperson who's doing it.

D. Effective use of teams, and

E. Quality leadership. Most consistently, how-ever, participants define TQM in terms of aprocess and structure for shared decision mak-ing, stressing the involvement and empower-ment of the faculty, and the changing role forthe principal.

Total quality management to me is having everyoneinvolved with children's learning. The parents,teachers, faculty, administration, staff even thecustodian, all pulling together to reach a common goal.

I see TQM as a War to involve as man's: people aspossible: teachers, administrators, staff paren ts.commun ity leaders, even students in decisimi- makingprocesses. It also teaches you about working together toreach a common goal.

Education is a little behind everybody, because, as Isaid, education puts the emphasis on top-down, youknow, superintendents, hierarchy down. And I knowindustry still has a h ierarchy, but they're getting peopleto hu y into the job, and they know that if you go towork at this place, you're going to have a say-so andyou're going to be empowered to do your job. I thinkthat it's been too long in education that teachers don'thave enough say-so.

I think the main thing about Total Quality Manage-ment that is new in a lot of education is the empower-ing of people to do their job. In education, a lot of times,we have a tendency to do top-down things. To me,that's the important thing about TQM, that everybodyfeels like they've got ownership in this thing.

W. took the ball out of the principal's court and westarted controlling things a little hit more and more. Iguess we kind of think we are somebody. And we usedtojust take notes and do whatever theY told us to do.Now, we do what is right for children, but we don'thave a boss. We're all in it together. When we finallyhad a voice, and now we're so protective of that Icouldn't go back to somebody telling me what to do.

F. An improvement versus "gotcha" culture.Because all of the project sites started with TQMas a school management change rather than as aclassroom management change (which is not tosav it could not have been implemented first inthe classroom). t here were few comments hatfell in this category. A few part icipants did

contrast TQM with fads and management byresults and suggested that over time therewould be a culture change in the classroom dueto the culture change in school management.

If it creates an atmosphere where change can takeplace, eventually it will make a diNrence. It gets intothe whole time frame thing. I think we in educationtend to look at quick fixes and bottom lines and scoresat the end of the year. On the short run, with totalquality, I don't know if you can measure its success orfailure. But if what they are looking for is team effortin the relationship between teachers and students, inwhat goes on in the classroom and the war decisionsare made then those decisions over a period of t imewill begin to make a difference.

2. Considerations RegardingFacilitating Understanding ofTQMThe time spent in formal workshop training onTQM concepts. tools, and related issues variedacross the locations. However, much more timewas spent by teams in trying to apply TQM totheir selected problem areas than in formalworkshop, training sessions. Transfer of readingmaterial and knowledge related to TQM itselfwas ongoing, involving self-training, reading,meeting, and trying to understand qualitybeliefs and principles. Most agreed that the reallearning occurred in the application of TQM.

All the TQM pilots acknowledge the initialimportance and benefits of relationships withfacilitators from outside their school or schoolsystem, citing the need for expertise and experi-ence not available in-house, and for the broaderperspective that outside facilitators provide.

Although some participants felt strongly thattrainers should be educators, others argued thatthe sensitivity of the facilitators is more impor-tant than their background. Personality andinteraction with staff are the keys.

Only through applying TQM did participantscome to understand it. Even though the learn-ing curve was steep and t i me-con su m i ng. t hesites ack now ledged that t hey have successfullydeveloped their own TQM applications and

gained experience and confidence in their use ofquality principles and tools. TQM training inthe abstract or in the absence of the opportunityfor a team to work together on a real "improve-ment" or mission is not recommended.

A good thing we did was to f ind a project to start withright away. And trying to get it put into a hands-onproject right away was a real learning experience. kV,:did things backwards, sometimes. We had to work ourway hack.

Probably last year was when we really started to wakeup and when we could start seeing things. But it wassomething we did on our own. I respect our trainers,hut I think it's a process that we pulled out of ourselves.It's not that they turned on the light.

A hard decision faced in implementation is howwidespread TQM training should be. Some TQMparticipants suggested more introductory TQMtraining should be provided to entire schoolfaculty at the onset. Sites which were moresuccessful in achieving total faculty ownershipwere those in which the principal oriented thewhole faculty to the effort and asked for volun-teers to participate on teams. In sites in whichthe principal had selected a team for participa-tion with little faculty awareness, some resent-ments developed as comments below indicate.

I would have liked to have seen the whole faculty havethe intensive training that the small group had. I thinkit needs to be a large thrust right at the beginning to geteverrbodr onboard and everrhodr understandingwhat it is. Everybodr needs to understand how it isgoing to be part of the school. I think everybody needsto understand that and buy into it. at the very begin-ning, instead of it being small groups of us starting out.

didn't have the dissension at our school but I didfeel like they thought, "I wonder what's going on inthere when they close that door and have those meet-ings". TQM, ther knew meant Total Quality Manage-ment. Other than that it was a mrsterr. In.service timecould have been used for that. If we had used theinservice tra in ing for the whole group, then they w(mldhave been more supportive.

In one of the six sites. Johnston Count v, theprincipals received a week of intensive TQM

+ 33

training prior to introducing TQM to theirfaculty. These principals suggested that thisprior exposure and lead time helped them putTQM in context for the faculty in terms of howit will help them better serve their students. Inall other sites, the school administrator receivedtraining at the same time as the participatingteachers, which was perceived as somewhatproblematic.

Had the ad lninistrators had a start on us, they couldhave seen some of the problems.

Make the upper echelon go through the process andaccept it and have their mindset open and then move itdown. I think they need to have more experience thanwe (teachers) do.

3. Perceptions ofImplementationAt a basic level, the success of the TQM projectcan be gauged by the amount of team effortexpended in trying to make improvements andtheir effectiveness in implementing improve-ments.

Are there some kinds of teams that are workingregularly in the school? Are there some issues beingtargeted? Is progress being made toward those? I thinkthose would be real key issues to see that there isactivity going on in the school using total qualitymanagement rather than just people saying we'reusing it but no activity is going on.

All of the sites were successful in forming teams.All sites formed TQM teams which operatedover the three-year period. All of the teamsstudied improvements, and collected andreviewed data. The participants suggest thatTQM can and does provide a vehicle or processfor facilitating positive, measurable change inthe school or school system setting.

We felt that if we could implement heterogeneousgrouping fOr at least a year, then we could use some Ofthe tools we learned to stuck. it. From what I've seen sofar, it looks as if I really have a f Jeeng we're going tosee that it's going to be very successful and beneficial. Ithink without the system to help us analvze that, Iwouldn't know that.

It's certainly made us look more critically at ourcurriculum. I mean, we've taken math and socialstudies apart bit by bit and we'll go into further areas.Our level of questioning for the students has improved.Instead of asking just lower-level questions, now theteachers are asking high level questions. And in thesocial studies program we're looking at all aspects ofthe state assessment program, and we are working, andour scores are gradually coming up.

We still don't have the results coropletely from Ourgroup, but I really think that the roost important thingwas the effort that was made. Even if it turns out thatwe didn't improve discipline that much, the fact thatwe paid attention to it and focused on it during thetime that we did and that we all worked together onthe project is just as important. We have a lot ofoffshoots of other TQM groups. Because we liked it, Ithink others wanted to do it to.

Through TQM, the participants have embracedthe concepts of data-driven decision making,and have an increasing understanding of andappreciation for the information gathering anddata analysis tools. They talk about stopping tostudy problems rather than just acting.

The scientific approach is a very important aspect;tak ing surveys, really trying to get a genuine picture ofwhat is going on, rather than an intuitive sense.

It taught me as a teacher that you just don't makejudgments. Mu use a lot of information and data toback things up.

Instead of just guessing, "hey, I think this might be aproblem"- I think we're now provided with some toolsto help us use data more effectively and analyze moreeffectively problems within our system.

I saw it last year on our site council. The way thesite council started to work was following some ofthe things we've learned in TQM not just makingthe decision based on what we think or feel. Weinvestigated first. It prolonged our process of makinga decision, but it made more effective decisions. Wedid a lot of investigating, a lot of work, using a lot ofthe tools and principle.s they taught us throughTQNI.

44- 34

Focus group participants understood andaccepted that TQM is a long-term process,suggesting that it takes a year to becomecomfortable with the language, tools, andprocess. Beyond this initial year of learning thebasics, participants varied widely in theiropinions about the time necessary to fullyimplement TQM, indicating that the pace ofimplementation depends upon the layers ofimplementation, the confidence level of theteachers, and facility with use of the Qualitytools.

The implementation of the ph ilosophy is not fastbecause it is so different from what most people havebeen doing. I still have some teachers after two and ahalf years who are not real comfortable making adecision on their own and I say to them after they askme the question, "What do you th ink?" and they sax. "Iknow, I know, I can answer that" and I say."right. -youcan".

The first year is just digging and studYing andtraining the team. And not expecting a whole lot ofchange or anything else. ou 'IAe just got to learn to usethe tools, gather information.

It is not a quick fix, it is not something that within amonth or two you're going to understand totallx andhe comfortable. This takes a long time.

4. Perceptions of ImpactFocus group data describe a variety of positiveimpacts either as a direct or indirect result ofhaving implemented TQM.

Improved problem-solving capabilities

We work better together now than we did before. We goabout solving problems in a more sYstematic way. !don't think that change would have occurred withoutthis particular emphasis.

I think TQM just sort of took theguesswork out of"What's wrong?" Vi'e learned that you need to go to thecustomer a nd find out what's wrong. \X surrexed thekids in ninth grade, in the eighth grade. in the sixth andOh grade. -That scared You the most when You cameto ninth grader The eighth graders u ere asked ques-

tions like "What is your greatest fear of going to highschool?"So try surveying those students a nd finding Outfrom them what their fears were, what they wereworried about, that gave us something to go on. Wesurveyed the parents."What are you worried (thou t foryour child when they go to m iddle school and highschool?" We surveyed the teachers. By following thatformat and surveying and identifying those problems, ittook the guesswork out of "What's wrong?" and TQMgave us a process.

Better decisions

I feel like it has been a good experience, too. I've been onthe committee for two years. The whole process ofTQM has helped us at our school. We have made somegood decisions using that format. I think we might nothave made those decisions had we not gone through theprocess. We probably would not have thought throughour reasons behind our decisions quite as carefully.

More focused

I think we are more focused now. I think three or fouryears ago we were floundering and knowing weneeded to improve, hut we didn't know how to specifi-callx focus on what we needed to improve. Totalquality has helped us focus on what we needed to workon and stick to it.

We approach school improvement more seriously,more systematically. I think the change isn't, we haven'treached the point that we need to be, hut-everyoneseems committed to improving. to continue learning,and refining the process, so that school improvementisn't something vague.

More in control, confident, successful

Things take a little longer, but (nice we have made thedecision, we're more confident in what we've done,and we have ways of evaluating what we've done, andwe can always go back and fix; if there's a problem, wecan change it. I think that's what TQM has done fin- us.It.'s been very effect ive.

lie worked with teachers in my department to startlooking and anal.; ing things, and u hen you can startLI, ;int; that you just feel better about Yourself. Thu feellike NUIlremiccessful during the day.

A Increased communication and betterrelationships

The people that we trained with in teams are reallyclose. We got in there and solved a problem together.We listened to each other.

I think relationships between teachers improve. Andany time you have improved relations, it is going toimpact what we do because we are going to do a betterjob.

Wha t I like about the program is that is encourages alot of team support. We meet more in my grade level.We meet once a week and plan, talk, so we are moreconscious of the way our teaching strategies work andhow to get the children to think in a more critical way.

Because of the TQM committee working on thetransition, our relationship with the other schools inthis system has really changed. That has all come fromthe communication, from sitting down and workingwith those teachers over there together, our school andtheir school working together. We would probablyhave a revolt if we tried to go back to an authoritar-ian type of management.

Thus, a powerful impact of TQM at some siteswas the breaking down of barriers and competi-tion across grade levels, disciplines, and schools.

Provides a common language

Politically now, I think that a connectedness with thebusiness community is important for educators interms of having a voice as to how things are going to goin the next three to five years.

It broadens the base of influence in schools. It in I.( ilves

more people of different types in the decision-makingprocess. It opens up the educati(ma I process to theentire community.

A Enhanced classioom effectiveness

Although the initial training at the six sites wasnot specifically directed at TQM in the class-room, several partici pants discussed the issue oft he impact on student performance. feeling t hatit was an implicit goal t hat teachers apply TQM

to their classroom setting. In particular, theyrealized that just as decisions can be made abouthow to manage a school, teachers make deci-sions about how to manage their classrooms.

It has helped me change a lot of my styles of working inthe classroom. The students have become my custom-ers.

26

I've been in education for 25 years and TQM has givenme a way of doing things differently that benefit me,my students, the way I make decisions, the way I relateto students and parents, understanding that if itwasn't for my students I wouldn't he here.

5. Leadership/PersonnelFocus participants from all six pilot sites, includ-ing principals, identified leadership from theprincipal as a key to successful implementationof TQM at the school. It is within this contextthat participants cautioned that schools shouldattempt to implement TQM only if the princi-pal is open to change and willing to shareauthority.

The personality traits of the principal need to beexamined before anybody even contemplates TQM. Ifyou've got a dogmatic person, and somebody that istypicalk top-down, I think you need to avoid itbecause you can't change a personality.

It is defin itek not for every school, not for everyprincipal. The principal is going to make it or break it.

And I as a school leader had a diff icult time adjustinginitially., letting go of some of the control and power.

lt won't happen unless you have a principal thatsupports you even if their opinion is,"that's not goingto work but I'm going to let WU try it so that N.ou can gothrough and figure it out and see what :you did wrong".I feel that should filter down to the classroom. h shouldfilter to the children.

The leadership has got to buy into it first. They've gotto be willing to give up their power so they can em-p( river the teachers.

There must he a climate ol miatial trust and respectfor TQM to succeed. The principal sets the stage for

36

trust. Some schools, judging by comments, have beenmore successful in establishing this climate of opennessthan others.

Participants also say that faculties must bereceptive to change.

The status quo is hard to buck; it is a major, majorproblem and I think the composition, complexion of aschool is going to be the single most critical component.You've got to have some younger teachers, young blood.

There are some faculties that have always been led byan autocratic leader, never had to make decisions, arenot comfortable making decisions, and don't want todo it. I don't think you can force them into that.They're not going to want to participate.

To overcome initial skepticism among schoolstake-holders, they must fully understand thatTQM is a long term process, and not a quick fix.School leaders can make this expectation clear.

I think that if another teacher said to me, "It's going totake a real time commitment and it's going to be thehardest thing you ever did", they could convince methat it was worth trying. Teachers are not idiots. Andfor many years we have been treated as though wedidn't have enough sense to look at a problem and takeit apart and come to some kind of solution. I thinkteachers would buy in, given correct information.

I think if your faculty is going to implement quality,that they have to realize right upfront that it's aprocess itself that you have to work through. AndNou're not going to go in every meeting and get ananswer. We don't need quick fixes. They don't work.

To the extent that it is a goal to change theschool culture through TQM, participantssuggested that TQM can be oversold and createunreasonable expectations if the introductiondoes not clearly outline the parameters of teaminfluence and faculty input and decision-making.

A lot of people thought that the whole school was goingto run the way TQM did. When the principal wouldhand down some decision, someone would say,"Well,what happened to TQM?" We were still operating

under the old system. Yet a lot of things were beingdone in new ways. The contradiction threw a lot ofpeople, especially those who were not involved on anyof the committees.

Start out saying, "We are going to work on these areas":Not have everyone think, just because we are going todo TQM that the entire school can by run by TQM.

There was an interpretation by our faculty that alldecisions would be made through TQM. There weredecisions that were targeted at being TQM and thenthey were not. Things would have been much betterhad things been clearer as to what was going to gothrough TQM process and what was not and why not.If the explanation is there, I am fine with that. I thinkthere needs to be a constant explanation of what weare doing and why we can't use TQM if we can't. Ithink if you do that, people will continue to believe init.

But your issue about politics is also important. If youare talking to other districts, they do need to be carefulnot to put that out there so that it becomes a target, likeOutcome-Based Education has been. It is just a label.Nobody knows what it is. People who-are not up onwhat TQM is are going to be down on it. In terms ofthe general public, if they want a target, they couldeasily make one out of this. So you just have to becareful not to broadcast it too m uch. Just go ahead anddo it and when it starts to make a difference, it starts tomake a difference, whatever you call it. I wouldcaution not to broadcast to the paper that th 'y aregoing to spend thousands of dollars on TQM. Becauseit isn't just a program, it's a process and attitude and ittakes time to permeate. It could easily get to be a target.

To summarize the role of the principal, partici-pants indicated that the principal should becomfortable releasing power to others, shouldclarify expectations about the long-term andcontinual nature of the process, should setparameters for team decision-making, shouldprovide leadership in planning for dissemina-tion of TQM within the school, and shouldencourage a trusting and open atmosphere.

6. Time in the School DayTime for training, planning and application ofTQM tools is cited across the board in the focus

group dialogues as the most significant poten-tial barrier or impediment to implementationof Total Quality Management. The kind of in-depth discussions about beliefs, purposes,strategies, evidence, etc. that these sites experi-enced take time, quality time. If teams do notmeet enough, at least every two weeks, they losethe thread of their discussions and have toreview at each meeting.

TQM team members acknowledge that themove to Quality requires a great amount ofextra work, with the work being an addition totheir usual full-time responsibilities.

I have asked.this faculty to do probably thirty percentmore than they've ever done in their life and they'vegotten no compensation, all they've gotten is me sayingthanks.

That's the whole th ing is time for plan n ing. You can'texpect teachers to take on a whole lot more on theirplates. They just don't have time.

The biggest problem you've got is time, I'm telling you.What they're asking is for us to do this when we'retired, at the end of the day.

You have to provide those key players that are going toimplement TQM with quiet time. You're going to haveto bite the bullet and have a couple of additionalteacher units so that you can creat, some one hourblocks during the school week so that teachers can havea chance to digest this stuff while they're fresh.

7. FundingThe funding provided by SERVE for outsidetraining and facilitation, released time forteachers, and to compensate teachers for theextra work involved in participation in TQMclearly was critical to the success of the TQMpilots.

While there was some acknowledgment that itwould have been possible to implement TQMwithout extra resources, the related issues oftime and money would have been much moresignificant barriers.

The funding help ith attitudes going into something,that the teachers know,"if I take four days this su m-mer, and I get into this training, I'm going to becompensated for it."

You need to be willing to paN people for hours spentafter regular work hours, and I think that's so impor-tant because so often, we ask educators to just donateall this time after hours.

8. ContinuityConsistent with national trends, during thethree years of the TQM pilot, turnover in schoolor system leadership and in participating staffhas occurred at all sites. Both school districtpilots have new superintendents. Two of thefour school pilots have new superintendents.Three of the four school pilots changed princi-pals. Only one school pilot site has had noleadership change.

The focus group discussions and the interviewssought to probe the issue of continuity, withparticipants being asked to comment on theimpact of school leadership turnover on TotalQuality Management.

The issue of leadership turnover emerged as asignificant potential barrier to TQM, withparticipants acknowledging the difficulty ofcontinuing TQM in a formal, systemic mannershould there be a change to an unsupportive orautocratic leader. While there was confidenceexpressed by participants at one pilot site thatTQM was sufficiently embedded in the schoolculture to withstand a leadership change, theirconfidence was grounded in the empowermentand ability they felt, through site-based manage-ment, to influence leadership attitudes andselection. The overriding consensus amongteachers, however, was that while they wouldindividually continue to practice TQM in theirclassrooms, that, as a school or system-wideprocess, TQM would not continue in a formalway in the absence of supportive leadership.

In a related issue, participants emphasized thevalue of providing thorough training for newfaculty, principals and TQM team members toassure Continuity of the process. Continued

access to training as turnover in staff occurs isimportant.

Comments from most of the schools whichhave experienced principal changes during thecourse of the three-year pilot indicate that whileTQM implementation progress may have slowedand new school administrators feel some frus-tration in trying to catch up, the new leaderswere supportive, and have been receiving thenecessary training, as time allows.

An interesting perspective on the future by oneof the four school sites is uncertainty about howthe ending of the SERVE grant will affectcontinuation. One participant suggested thatthe approach might be dropped with the endingof the grant because administrators had notrealized that it would mean giving up somepower. Thus, the teacher is unclear ;,boutwhether "empowerment" of teachers is just aphrase, based on a desire for grant funding, orwhether it has truly been embraced. Clea4quality leadership by the principal is critical tocontinuity.

Some of the participants, although positiveabout their experiences, expressed varying levelsof concern about where the effort will go fromhere. A school, acting alone to implement TQM(without a district-wide TQM effort), as were thefour school sites who worked with Westat, isparticularly vulnerable to losing their leader (aprincipal change) in the early years. However,even in the districts which are encouraging allprincipals to manage with TQM and providingthem training and support, not all will initiallybe comfortable with the role demanded of them.A principal change can have implications indistrict-wide implementation if the new princi-pal is one of those who is not comfortable withthe ideas.

Lessons LearnedTo provide a summary of observations aboutTQM from among the six pilot sites, commentsfor this section were drawn from the focusgroup dialogues to illustrate lessons learnedabout TQM and its implementation. Alsoincluded in this section are responses to the

question, "Based on your experience, whatadvice would you give to a school or systemconsidering TQM?" The lessons learned andadvice provide a concise overview of the rangeof issues addressed by school stakeholdersthroughout the study.

To the extent that TQM teams at the pilot siteslearned and applied the Total Quality Manage-ment philosophy, principles and tools in achiev-ing specific, targeted outcomes, all the sites c-11be said to have demonstrated successful imple-mentation of TQM. In six very different con-texts, the pilot sites have all demonstrated theviability and applicability of TQM in the schoolsetting, with none indicating that the effort hadbeen unproductive.

However, now in the third year of implementa-tion, none of the sites would describe them-selves as managing by a total quality approach atall levels. The process of TQM is demonstrablylong term or evolutionary, with each site evolv-ing or maturing at a rate determined by site-specific conditions or circumstances. While nosingle site yet provides a complete model of amature TQM culture, a composite of the TQMexperiences from the six pilot sites reveals boththe keys and barriers to successful implementa-tion which can be viewed as fundamental issuesto be considered by schools having an interest inTQM.

Consistently among the six pilot sites, the keysto a total quality school or system were said bythe stakeholders to be:

A committed and supportive leader who iswilling to share decision making authority;

A A faculty that is willing and open to changeand/or can be convinced of the need forimprovement; TQM training for schooladministrators, faculty and staff that isclearly applicable to public education andappropriate to the individwti school orsystem setting and climate;Time for training and participation in theTQM process which does not result inparticipants being pushed beyond theireffective capacity;

Inclusion of all faculty in an orientation orintroduction to or otherwise informingthem about TQM; andRecognition that TQM is not a quick-fixsolution and requires the continuing com-mitment of all stakeholders.

The potential barriers to TQM are essentiallyreverse images of the keys:

A linsupportive, autocratic leadership;A faculty which is largely content with thestatus quo;

A A lack of adequate or appropriate training;Insufficient time or resources for trainingand participation in TQM; and

A A lack of continuing commitment to theTQM process.

In most cases, the identified barriers can beovercome by creative leadership, resources and

training. One potential barrier, however. emery.ing as particularly prohlematic. was the issue ofleadership turnover. All pilot sites experienced aleadership changeeither the superintendent.principal or both. Fortunately, the new leader-ship in each observed case was either support yeor open to TQM. and while implemental ionslowed, it did not stop.

An interesting question is at what point a schoolor district would have instituted enough of atotal quality management structure and processthat it would resist a new leader who supporteda different style of management. The culture ofany school is sensitive to the turnover of itNleaders, and the mix of trained, committed TQ Istaff to untrained. unempowered staff is crit icalto continuation.

4 0

IIAPTER

C ide dons in Getting StartedWhat does If ye tooffer?The previous chapters provide a sense of thebenefits of this approach to the management ofthe school improvement process. TQM takes upwhere site-based management leaves off. Thepush for site-based management has beenpredicated on the Laef that better decisionswill be made and mOrale will improve if facultyare involved in the decision-making process ofthe school. Research shows that directingschools to implement site-based management inthe absence of any management theory, philoso-phy, process, or structure can lead to confusion.Exposure to TQM can provide an organizingframework and tools for teams to use in theirquest for improvement.

Secondly, TQM can help establish a commit-ment to put children before the needs of thebureaucracy. Children need to feel importantand rhat they are being supported as they growand improve. They should not be made to feellike failures, as many currently do in schoolswhere only the brightest can experience success.The ultimate implementation of TQM is in theestablishment of a school community which isdedicated to the continuous improvement ofprograms, teachers, and students.

In addition, at a district level, TQM can ptovide acommon language and belief system acrossschools ro guide decent ralization efforts (site-based management). Some TQM districts buildtheir administrator evaluation system aroundthe total quality approach to management.

Principals are evaluated on the extent to whichthey use this approach. In this way, the district isproviding a vision for all school leaders to strivefor. Similarly, some districts have used some ofthe major ideas of TQM (reflecting on quality,empowering through the use of input, choiceand teams, use of data, etc.) as part of a process ofinvolving teachers in discussions of a commonvision for a good classroom environment. Inaddition to providing commonalities acrossclassrooms and schools, it also provides a com-mon language between schools, the highereducation community, and the business corn-mut tity since all levels can and have appliedTQM.

What schools or districtsmight benefit from TQM?As several comments in the last chapter sug-gested, TQM is not for everybody. At one ex-treme, there may be schools or districts who arealready operating with a TQM approach, due toexcellent leadership, but have not identifiedtheir approach as TQM. The beliefs about how tomanage change represented by TQM are shoredby niny leaders. A school or district can operatein harmony with TQM principles without everhaving had exposure to the approach. As men-tioned in Chapter 2, the components of TQMore similar to others in the educat ional reformliterature (e.g., the principles of effective schools,the components of school renewal in theProfessiottal League of Scitools). At the otherextreme is the leader who truly resi is yieldingpower. TQM may not be for t hat- school ordistrict. Perhaps the ideal client for TQM is a

school or district that has recognized the needfor significant improvement and recognized theneed for faculty involvement, but does not havea framework or guidelines for starting theprocess. TQM provides the knowledge and skillbase for harnessing the power of teamwork.Another type of school or district that maybenefit is one that has welcomed change and hasbeen struggling with improvements but hastended to bounce from one short-term im-provement to another. TQM provides theanchor for the long haul. Lastly, a school ordistrict which is interested in having teachersinvolved in discussions of factors involved inincreasing student responsibility and improvingthe classroom learning environment could wellbenefit from a TQM initiative.

There are clear advantages to adopting thephilosophy and process of TQM at a districtlevel. The district can offer school teams supportin the form of a guiding mission statement,curricular objectives and other system wideimprovement goals, resources for professionaldevelopment, facilitation, data analysis, andincentives in the form of recognition andencouragement. That is not to say that indi-vidual school sites haven't and won't continueto implement TQM, even in cases where thedistrict is not actively involved. The example setby one "lead" school may pave the way fordistrict support for other schools.

What do school leadersneed to consider instarting TOM?From the data presented. the principal plays akey role in building a TQM culture. Someplanning questions for principals to considerare:

1. Will you obtain intensive training beforeyour staff so that you can help support theirlearning and implementation? Most sitesagreed this was desirable.

2. Once you are "sold" on the need, how willyou int roduce t he need Cor TQN1 to the staff?(what it is; why it's important; how it will

help the school achieve its mission: how itmakes students the priority). This came upseveral times in the focus groups. Faculty atsome sites felt that most teachers wouldaccept the change if the principal conveyedthe long-term and continual nature of theimprovement process and that it is hardwork. Teachers will likely relate well to theneed for an anchoring procek, (identifyingwhat works or doesn't work as a basis ofimproving, rather than continually addingnew programs).

3. Should the faculty/staff be given a choiceabout whether they would like the trainingas a way of improving the school manage-ment and improvement process or as a wayof improving the classroom learning envi-ronment, or will you make that choice? Inthe SERVE sites, all used TQM as a base forbetter site-based management (improvingschool outcomes through more effective useof teams). However, as more training re-sources (books, workshops) become availableon classroom applications, others are findingthat introducing TQM training at this level isan option.

4. If faculty/staff study or improvement teamswill be formed or perhaps, rethought, whatkinds of team(s) will you recommend?Should the teams be existing teams such asgrade level or department teams or new,cross-functional teams to look at a specificarea or both? Continuous improvement(study the problem, plan and implement,evaluate, revise, evaluate, etc.) is a time-intensive process that needs initial leadershipfrom either inside or outside facilitators sodecisions about the number and kinds ofteams should take into account resources(your time, teacher time, training/consultantfunds).

5. Consider how a fair and open process forinitial team selection might occur to avoidany conflicts among team members andothers. Some "we-they" resentment amongfaculty did occur at sites where teams hadbeen selected by the principal without therest of the fac u I t y's knowledge.

-----4--

6. Who will research and select the trainers/facilitators for the process? What changes inschedules need to be made to allow teams tomeet regularly?

7. How will the parameters for the team's workbe developed and communicated to faculty/staff? Linda Smith of Smithfield Middle inJohnston County developed a school team

.A; manual that lays out the responsibilitiesso-7, (purposes and description of team program-

matic responsibilities) for each school team1 along with expectations about how teams

will function (roles of members, agendas,reports, etc.). Such a manual could go a long

% way to providing the "big picture" to allfaculty/staff about how team responsibilitiesrelate to each other.

This 1 ist is not an exhaustive one but one that, reflects the experiences of the SERVE school

sites.

What do districts need toconsider in starting TOM?T he two SERVE pilot districts, after three years,are still committed to the continuous improve-ment of quality services. As pointed out in theintroduction, there is no one correct way to doTQM but there are some things that can belearned from these two districts. We asked thetwo districts for advice they would share withot hers. (The quotes are theirs.)

Communication IssuesAs indicated above for principals, district leadersmust also analyze communication issues. Notonly does the district office have to communi-cate with the school board, but also with busi-nesses, higher education, principals, teachers,students, and others. All of these entitiesulti irately need to understand the reasons forconsidering a new management culture.

TQN1 takes long- term commitment to work. M "Nign

on" to this tough journey people need to feel 0 sense iufurgency and know that then: i need for Nignijicantchange. Natislactiun With the Matt(S quo nmkes the

desire to implement TQM unlikely. What needs to bedone to get TQM started in an organization where weare constantly seeking the flavor of the month; themagic bullet that will solve all Our problems?

1) First, communicate and discuss the need forTQM with affected groups. There is muchresearch about why reform of education has notyielded desired results. Many of the problemsidentified fit well with TQM principles (e.g.,program decisions are based on intuitive wis-dom rather than reasoned looks at data; central-ized mandates assume staff/students are theproblem rather than the beginning of thesolution if empowered and trained to work inteams). If the school board understands andsupports the need for TQM, its visible supportwill likely make principals and teachers morewilling to participate. This support also providessome assurance of continuity should there be asuperintendent change.

2) Second, start with a manageable number ofvolunteer teams (interestingly, both of thesedistricts picked three pilot schools). Theseschools or staff could be chosen on the basis ofhaving significant concerns that need address-ing or being particularly ready for a more orga-nized framework for change. Finally, supportthem in sharing their experiences. Principalsmay need to be convinced that TQM is notsomething done in addition to site-basedmanagement. It is a way to do site-based man-agement better. When participating principalsshare their experiences with others, they canhelp alleviate unfounded fears and perceptions.

As initial teams, either district-wide or school-based, are selected to participate in TQM, onepossible way to avoid miscommunication is tohave them develop project proposals describingtheir work. The proposals are shared with andagreed to by district and school leadership. Onceparameters are formulated, the team is assuredthat the team's proposals for needed improve-ments can be implemented. Wit hour this initialagreement, disillusionment on all sides is a realpossibi lit y as teams may be told that a plancannot he implemented after much time wasspent in its development and t eam members are

committed to the ideas. Another advantage isthat the proposal forces the team to clearlyarticulate the problem, key measures, andstrategies.

3) Third, teachers who apply TQM tools toimprove the learning environment can bepowerful advocates or champions of the needfor culture change in the classroom.

Last year's Teacher of the Year used quality tools in theclassroom and she can talk that talk to other teachers.We need more of that. We need teachers to stepforward and say, I can do the.se things and theyworked. As an administrator I could sing it for monthsand it wouldn't sink in. You could take two teachers inthere to talk to other teachers and sell it like that. Oneof the things that the state steering committee is ackingfor is videos because they're getting the question frompotential funders, tell me what it looks like in aclassroom.

In conclusion, although principals, teachers, andstudents will only truly understand what TQMis by trying to apply it, others' success stories canhelp them open the door and understand thepurpose for opening the door.

Training/Facilitation Issues1) Training is an expense that needs to becarefully studied. It is important to investigateavailable resources and talk to other systemsabout resources they have used.

2) In addition to considering how TQM train-ing fits into the organization's professionaldevelopment efforts for all school leaders,teachers, and others, training for school teamson the continuous improvement process shouldbe "just in time," that is, closely related in time tothe team's study of a problem or process. Sup-port from the trainer should continue throughthe first improvement project with the trainerperiodically assessing team effectiveness andreemphasizing important considerations.

It is very easy for teams to slip into non-produc-tive and time-consuming behaviors. In RockHill, every team meeting is evaluated by eachmember on factors related to good team pro-cesses to help internalize high standards for

team meetings. Another obstacle for teams is aninitial rush to solutions without thoroughlyunderstanding the problem. A good facilitatorensures the right questions are asked.

In some cases, the principal might be able toperform this facilitator/trainer role.

3) A final consideration for districts is thebalance between central office, school leader,faculty/team, and teacher/classroom trainingsupport. Recently some districts have begun toimplement from the bottom up. Teachers andthe classroom learning environment might beconsidered the entry point for several reasons.There is some evidence that the principals as agroup might not welcome TQM as a manage-ment change initially, but if teachers begin tolearn the concepts for the classroom, principalswould be more motivated. Another rationalemight be that quality starts with the individualand that teachers are the most critical individu-als in the system. Or, finally, it may be thatculture changes will grow better roots if teach-ers are given opportunities to discuss and agreeupon "ideal" classroom learning environments.Based on these understandings about relation-ships between students and teachers, schoolleaders would be in better positions to manageschool improvement processes.

In closing, there is no right way to implementTQM. Rather TQM represents an opportunityfor those in an organization at any level (studentto school board) to examine their workingenvironment and "culture" and to begin aprocess of changing that culture if needed. TQMis consistent with efforts to increase localresponsibility for school improvement andstudents' responsibility for their progress.

Finally. SERVE would like to thank all theeducators across the six sites for their dedicationto and leadership in the continuous improve-ment of t he educational system. In particu lar,we appreciate their willingness to share theirsuccesses and struggles with others in the regionand nation. SERVE hopes to continue its effortsto study and understand TQM im plement at ionissues as they evolve in the Southeast.

44 4

ReferencesAmes, R. & Ames, C. (1093). Creating a mastery-oriented school wide culture: A team leadership perspective. M.Saskin & H.J Walberg (Eds.). In Educational Leadership and School Culture. Berkeley, CA: McCutchanPublishing Corporation.

Bond, L. (1994). Surveying the landscape of state educational assessment programs. Edtalk. Council forEducational Development and Research. 2000 L Street, NW, Suite 601, Washington, D.C. 20036

Bonstingl, J. (1992). Schools of quality: An introduction to Total Qua lit.. Management in Education. Alexan-dria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Frazier, A. (In Press). Roadmap for quality transformation in educatimi. (Available from The North CarolinaQuality Leadership Foundation, 4904 Professional Court, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27609)

Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools: A guide for school-based action. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Hatry, H. P, Morley, E., Ashford, B., & Wyatt. T. M. (1994). Implementing school-based management. Washing-ton, D. C.: The Urban Institute.

Lezotte, L.W (1992); Creating the total quality effective school. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.

Maehr, M. & Buck, R. (1993). Transforming school culture. In M. Sashkin & Hj. Walberg (Eds.). Educa-tional Leadership and School Culture. Berkeley. CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Mt. Edgecumbe High School, Sit ka, Alaska. Mt. Edgecumbe High School Informational Packet. (Availablefrom Mt. Edgecumbe High School, 1330 Seward Ave., Sitka, Alaska 99335-943)

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1994). Special Report: Site based management in NorthCa olina (Contact: Myra Copenhaver) Raleigh. NC: author.

Saskin, M. & Saskin, M.G. (1993). Principals and their school cultures: Understandings from quantita-tive and qualitative research. In M. Sash k in & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational Leadership and SchoolCulture. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

Scholtes, P. R. (1994). The team handbook for I tors: Hott. to use teams to improue quality. (Available fromJoiner Associates, 3800 Regent St. P.O. Box 5445 Madison, WI 53705-0445)

Shedd, J.B. & Bacharach, S.B. (1904 Tangled Hierarchies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Southeastern Regional Vision For Education. (1904). Overcoming barriers to school reform in the southeast.(U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Contract No.RP91002010). Tallahassee, FL: author.

Southeastern Regional Vision For Educat ion. (1994). A ?wit-framework for state occou ntthilit'v systems. a. S.

Department of Ed I win ion. ('ffice of Educational Research and improvement. Contract No.R P91002010). Tallahassee, Ft.: author.

AppendixDescriptions of SERVE'sTOM Pilot SitesIn the 1992-93 school year, four schools and twoschool systems were selected as SERVE-spon-sored TQM pilots. Descriptions of the sites andtheir applications of Total Quality Managementare described below Contact persons are pro-vided if more information is desired from anysite.

Starting at the DistrictLevelTwo of the six pilot sites introduced TQMimplementation through an initiative directedby the district office.

Rock Hill, South CarolinaJohn Taylor, Associate SuperintendentRock Hill School District Three660 N. Anderson Rd.Rock Hill, SC 29730803-324-5360

The impetus for the South Carolina districtproject started with conversations between localbusiness leaders and the superintendent. Theseconversations resulted in top district leadershipattending an actual Derning seminar and thenvisiting local industries which were implement-ing quality principles. SERVE identified thedistrict as a pilot project after the superinten-dent and key staff had been through TQMtraining and after a TQM steering committeehad been formed and was exploring ways toimplement the quality philosophy and tools inthe district. The district leadership felt that agrant from SERVE would allow them to providethe training and assistance to move TQM intosome schools as potential demonstration sitesfor other schools. SERVE funding covered thecosts of TQM consultants/ trainers, release timefor participating teachers, and some expensesassociated with improvement projects ident ifiedfor study.

The district was attracted to TQM because of thepush toward site-based management and thefact that the principles of TQM seemed to offeran answer to the dilemma of how one preparesschools for site-based management (capacitybuilding) and how one maintains a "systemfocus" while decentralizing decision-making. (InTQM terms, the district hoped to avoid the"suboptimization" that can result when compo-nents of a system work independently of eachother without knowledge of the system.) All 20schools in the district had school improvementteams in place prior to the initiation of TQM.

This district initially focused TQM trainingactivity on three volunteer schools that formeda small feeder system (an elementary, middleand high school). All faculty at the three schoolswere given an orientation to TQM by facilitatorswith industry background. TQM teams fromeach of the three schools then received intense,ongoing training from TQM facilitator/ trainersfrom both the corporate and educational arenas.In addition to the three school TQM teams, across-school team was formed to study andimprove the process of transition from school toschool within the feeder system. Trainingprovided for teams was always done on a "just intime" basis so that those trained immediatelyhad application opportunities. Facilitators wereprovided for each team from either the centraloffice staff or from local industry with districtoffice involvement to emphasize visibly districtlevel support for the work of teams.

The "problem" selected for study and improve-ment by the elementary school team was theprocess of communication with parents aboutthe progress and needs of children. This in-volved study of grading issues, reporting issues(report card formats, etc.) and especially theconferencing skills and availability of staff forparents. The middle school TQM team similarlyfocused on the process of two-way continuouscommunication with the home in order toobtain more feedhack from parents and toimprove the educational experience for chil-

dren. The high school team selected as a prob-lem the number of freshman students notparticipating in co-curricular activities andsought to improve the processes involved instudents choosing to participate, as such partici-pation is linked to many positive statistics(reduction of dropouts, better discipline, im-proved academics).

This district is seeking to model empowermentof teachers by moving a process for decisionmaking to the school and teacher level whilemaintaining a "system focus." With certainparameters in place teacher teams at one schoolhave made teaching assignments, plannedfaculty communications including facultymeetings, and revised school discipline proce-dures. In addition to the training completedwith the staffs of the three initial schools, allprincipals and district office staff have had fouror more days of TQM training. The entire schoolstaff of 1,300 have had a half da7 overviewpresentation on TQM and its importance for thedistrict. Training for all new teams is providedon a "just in time" basis.

In addition to supporting TQM at the schoollevel, a district-wide TQM steering team hasevolved into a strategic planning team of 40people who have developed a proposed districtmission, core beliefs, and learner standardswhich subsequently were "ratified" by all schoolstaffs, advisory groups, and other significantgroups. Teams have been developed to focus onstrategies for improvement. These district-wideteams are focusing on six major areas whichinclude technology, school climate, safety, staffdevelopment, curriculum, and collaboration.

Johnston County, North CarolinaRandy Bridges. Assistant SuperintendentJohnston County Board of EducationPD. Box 1336Smithfield, NC 27577919-934-60 31

This North Carolina district (27 schools) also hadan interested su per' n tendent as a precursor t oreceiving the SERVE grant. When t his newsuperintendent began to serve in lohnst on

County in 1991, he spent three months listeningto the community about the needs of thesystem. At a board of education retreat, heproposed that the results of this assessmentpointed to the need for TQM in the district. At asubsequent board meeting in September 1991.the board adopted the superintendent's recom-mendation that the TQM journey begin. Anoutside consultant was immediately secured tobegin the training for the senior leadershipteam, which includes the board of education,superintendent, assistant superintendents, andall school principals. The team attended a four-day Deming seminar conducted via satellite.

Beginning in November 1991, monthly trainingsessions were conducted with the senior leader-ship. The training focus was on developing anawareness and understanding of the principlesof quality, the definition of quality, Deming's 14points as related to education, the concept ofcontinuous improvement, the use of basicquality tools, and the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle.

After many meetings with representatives fromeach school, a new Johnston County SchoolsMission Statement was officially adopted. Itreads, "Johnston County Schools will foster aflame for learning within each child that willlast a lifetime. To achieve this mission, we willcontinually improve our services of educationand meet our community's requirement forquality."

In the summer of 1992, the school system wasreorganized at the senior level with the elimina-tion of the positions of associate superinten-dent, assistant superintendent, and specialassistant to the superintendent. All of thesepositions became senior associates, therebyflattening the leadership of the organization.The Johnston County Schools Total QualityLeadership Council Nvas formed and beganmeeting on a monthly basis. The group serves asan advisory group to the hoard of education andthe superintendent.

In October of 1992, two schools, SmithfieldMiddle and Four Oaks Middle School were,,elected by the central office to betzin a t hree-

47

year TQM initiative through funding by SERVE.The two principals had received a week ofintense TQM training in Ohio prior to begin-ning this effort. The principals, in turn, pre-sented the ideas and a plan for beginning withTQM to the faculty The approach to the facultywas to offer everyone the opportunity to beinvolved in some way on teams. Cross-func-tional teams (consisting of staff from a varietyof programs or levels) were established aroundexisting functions. For example, at SmithfieldMiddle, there are seven cross-functional teams: aleadership team of teachers, secretaries, parentsand the principal that implements schoolimprovement plans and determines budgetneeds; a technology team that assesses equip-ment and training needs; a student service teamthat is responsible for remediation, incentive,and parent involvement programs; a communi-cation team that looks at school communica-tion strategies and business involvement; aschool climate team that assesses student recog-nition programs, working conditions, anddiscipline issues; a curriculum and instructionteam which reviews program needs and plansprofessional development; and an assistance/crisis intervention team which reviews informa-tion on students referred for behavior or aca-demic problems. Faculty were encouraged tovolunteer for participation on any of theseteams.

To promote continuous improvement in coresubjects (math, reading, writing, science, socialstudies), three grade level teams (one per grade)were established which meet once per day andonce per week with the principal.

In the first year, the cross-functional teams metat least once a month, with the leadership orquality team meeting more often. In addition, aconsultant worked with teams off-site forseveral days. The training primarily consisted oforientation to TQM theory and beliefs (aware-ness) rather than application. Thus, the princi-pals took an active role in leading the culturebuilding process. That is, they were the facilita-tors of the change. In addition to the traininggoing on with the faculty of these two schools,the consultant met once a month with all

school principals and continued to work withdistrict-wide teams.

In 1993-94, another pilot school was added. FourOaks Elementary School organized K-5 gradelevel teams, an enrichment teachers' team, asteering team comprised of all grade level chairs,and the Quality Council comprised of parents,teachers, teacher assistants, custodians, and foodservice representatives.

A significant aspect of the TQM process in thisdistrict has been a strong business partnership inthe community, not necessarily for funding, butfor facilitating meetings, talking about TQM interms of its meaning for them, training teachersin technology on weekends, sending principalsto facilitating sessions free of charge, and otherkinds of support. In additional, the district has auniversity partnership that provided support inthe form of collecting baseline survey data fromevery employee on their level of understa0ingof Quality. The university is also interested intraining future teachers in the TQM concepts.Additionally, the district was selected to be oneof seven demonstration sites in North Carolinafor a Total Quality Education initiative spon-sored by the North Carolina Business Commit-tee for Education and the governor's office,which provided additional financial support.

The district experienced a superintendentchange midway through the SERVE project.Under the new superintendent, the districtentered into an agreement with Pinellas CountySchools in Florida, a national leader in totalquality education, to provide training andguidance to the entire school system. Becausedifferent trainers/facilitators have slightlydifferent approaches as to what TQM means, itwas decided that the leadership teams/qualitycouncils at all schools should be.trained, eventhose pilot schools who had previously beentrained by the original consultant. All weretrained by May1995. In the summer of 1995,the three pilot schools sent a total of 50 teachersto a training session on the application of TQMto the classroom.

The district has developed several videos high-lighting different aspects of their TQM imple-mentation and a TQM training manual. Linda.Stevens, the principal at Smithfield MiddleSchool, has developed a Guide for Using Team-ing in a Quality School Setting which explainssome of the details of how she has made team-ing work for school improvement.

Starting at the SchoolLevelSERVE contracted with Westat, a research/consulting firm, to develop TQM training andfacilitate the implementation of TQM at fourschool sites. The four schools that volunteeredto participate had some to no previous knowl-edge of TQM. The schools received funding forthree years to cover teacher release and travelcosts associated with the implementation. Thefour schools met together over the three-yearperiod and shared experiences, in meetingscoordinated by Westat facilitators.

Although some argue that it is impossible for asingle sch-;:l to implement TQM in a "non-TQMdistrict," an interest in TQM can originate from aschool principal or leadership team (see Mt.Edgecombe High School, Sitka, Alaska). If aschool experiences success with this approach,other schools in the district may become inter-ested. The experience with the following fourSERVE sites suggests that TQM can be initiatedat a single school within a district under certainconditions.

Magnolia Junior High,Moss Point, MississippiRichard Niles, Principal4630 Magnolia St.Moss Point, MS 39563601-475-1429

This Mississippi junior high school had a fairlytraditional management structure at the begin-ning of this project. There were few operationalschool teams. The school leadership recognizedthat, like many other schools, they were strug-gling with issues of low test scores and lack ofstudent interest. This realization led Magnolia's

40

principal to search for answers in the literature,particularly in the Total Quality Managementarea. Thus, the principal was eager when theopportunity to participate in the SERVE projectpresented itself.

In fall 1992, the principal selected five teachers(leaders in their disciplines) to participate as ateam. The team met for a day each month withthe Westat trainers/ facilitators to learn andapply TQM concepts. The team also met weeklywithout the facilitators to work on their chosenimprovement project, the improvement of theinstructional management system (1MS). TheIMS had been developed in 1982 to providedirection to teachers on what to teach and tomeasure student mastery of specific skills andinformation. The system consisted of a con-tinuum of skills and objective tests to measuremastery of each skill. Although the system hadbeen valuable in ensuring that specific skillswere taught and mastered, it did not addresslearning at a high level. The problem identifiedby the team was that purposeful, quality workby students was even discouraged because of theoverabundance of information to be learned onthe skills continuum and tests.

The team surveyed staff and students to betterunderstand their perceptions about the need forcurriculum change. The survey results con-firmed their statement of the problem in thatteachers and students agreed that the 1MSshould be rethought. The TQM team developeda project mission statement.

"The mission statement of this project is to fosteracademics and critical thinking skills by revisingthe instructional management system andcreating a learning atmosphere where mutualrespect and enjoyment exists."

The team began its work on redesigning the IMSand selected the seventh grade English skillscontinuum as a starting place. They worked toreduce the number of skills and make assess-ments more meaningful and instruction morepurposeful.

In the second project year, the principalshipchanged hands, and as often happens, so did the

49

project emphasis. Since the district was soon tobe engaged in a district-wide rewrite of theentire curriculum, the team decided to leave therewrite of the IMS to this district-wide commit-tee and refocus their efforts on introducing theentire school staff to TQM. The Westat facilita-tors/ trainers helped the team present TQMconcepts to the faculty. The faculty chose threeproblem areas to work on and the TQM teammembers functioned as group facilitators forthese three study groups.

One group studied "Better Hallway and LockerManagement" by observing students in thehalls. A second group studied "ImprovingStudent Responsibility for Bringing Materials toClass," by charting how and when studentscame to class unprepared. The third groupstudied "The Improvement of Student Achieve-ment and Motivation through Peer Tutoring,"and collected survey data on how students andfaculty felt about this approach.

In the third project year, all three problem-solving teams are monitoring and evaluatingthe implementation of recommendations.

Thus, at this site, the entire faculty has hadexposure to the TQM approach to managingimprovement. It should also be noted, as wasfound at other sites, turnover in trained teammembers was significant. Of the six originalTQM team members, only two are still at theschool.

Gulf Shores Middle School,Gulf Shores, AlabamaHank Vest, PrincipalP.O. Box 3249Gulf Shores, AL 36547205-968-8719

Until 1992, Gulf Shores had one school forgrades K-8. Due to growth, a new middle schoolwas built to serve grades 5-8. Gulf Shores MiddleSchool opened in August 1992 with an interimadministration 'and a staff of 18. The districtselected the school to participate in the SERVEpilot partly because of this newness. Ar the timeof the SERVE grant, the district had little ex peri-

ence with site-based management. The TQMteam members were selected by the interimschool principal and a resource teacher, whosubsequently became principal. Thus, the TQMteam identified to receive the Westat trainingconsisted of the principal and three classroomteachers.

The team decided early in the first year oftraining by \Vestat facilitator/ trainers to includethe entire faculty in the TQM effort due to thesmall size of the staff. The team members puttogether a three hour workshop on TQM fromthe materials they had been studying. Thefaculty was divided into three teams, each witha TQM team member as a group facilitator.These new groups were asked to brainstormareas of concern. The three areas chosen were"Classroom Interruptions," "Staff Morale," and"Teaching Techniques." The remainder of thefirst year was spent on facilitating the continuedstudy of the three selected problem areas. The"Classroom Interruptions" group collected dataon the amounts and kinds of interruptions thatoccurred in classrooms. The "Staff Morale"group collected data from teachers on concerns,and the "Teaching Techniques" group collecteddata from teachers on instructional methodsused. These study groups did not resume theirwork in the second project year.

In the second year of project implementation,the focus shifted somewhat. Rather thanfacilitating special project teams, the TQM coreteam selected two areas to study: shared deci-sion-making models and interdisciplinarycurriculum. Rather than concerns or problems,these areas were seen as directions for the future.The team visited the Deer Lake TQM pilot site,described later, which had a functioning schoolimprovement council, to elicit ideas aboutscheduling, organizational structure, proce-dures, etc., for site-based management. A site-based, decision-making model was designed andpresented to the faculty After elections wereheld for the school's first site council, a TQMteam member trained the site council membersin some group process techniques. AnotherTQM team member became a leader in efforts toplan and develop interdisciplinary teachingunits for the school.

tt

In the third year, one of the original threeteachers on the team had left the school so theTQM team is no longer meeting as such. How-ever, the school is actively focusing on customersatisfaction. The site council is charged withreviewing concerns submitted by any parent,student, teacher, or others. The concerns first goto an advisory board (a sub-committee of thecouncil) which in turn determines if the con-cern is a schoolwide concern. If so, it is passed onto the site council for study. Thus, the site-basedcouncil has a very customer-focused mission. Infact, one of the first issues the council dealt withwas the need for better communication withparents because a parent submitted a request forthe council to consider initiating orientationsfor parents.

W. Fred Scott Elementary,Thomasville, GeorgiaRobin Gay, Principal100 North Hansell St.Thomasville, GA 31792912-225-2631

W Fred Scott Elementary initially becameinvolved in the Southeastern Regional Visionfor Education (SERVE) project when PrincipalRobin Gay was contacted by the State Depart-ment Regional Director. At that time, SERVEwas attempting to identify schools that wouldbe interested in a three-year project focusing onContinuous Quality Improvement. Located inThomasville, Georgia, Scott Elementary wasbuilt in the late 1960's and presently serves 480students from grades kindergarten through five.The student body is representative of thepopulation of Thornasville. The faculty consistsof twenty-six teachers, fourteen paraprofession-als, two secretaries, two custodians, and five foodservice workers.

After being selected for this opportunity. Princi-pal Gay presented the information to the entirefaculty. She asked for volunteers who would bewilling to make a commitment to one Saturdaya month for the next three years. Many staffmembers shared their interest and willingnessto partic ipate in the project. A decision wasmade to create a school-wide representative

team which would include one teacher pergrade level and one resource person. The mem-bers of the original quality management teamare: Robin Gay, principal; Mary Morris, firstgrade; Imogene Conyers, fifth grade; MaggieBoozer, fourth grade; and Mary Friesen, resource.Staff members were made aware at the onsetthat as the process progressed more of thefaculty would be involved. This has come tofruition as the school now has a leadership teamwhose goal is to make decisions concerningvarious operations of the school. This group iscomprised of five teachers, one resource person,and one paraprofessional.

There are approximately 96 years of teachingexperience among leadership team members.The group has been very fortunate in thatindividual members share a great many idealsconcerning the education of children and sharea commitment to quality education. Theseconcerns entail making necessary changes andtaking risks to improve learning.

In the first project year, the quality managementteam received TQM training and chose theproblem area to study. The principal encour-aged the team to think of themselves as acurriculum improvement team and to focus onthose issues that would make a difference inclassrooms and thus, impact students.

Using TQM tools in the first year to focus onelevating critical thinking skills in mathematics,the team studied teachers' use of higher-orderquestioning in the classroom. This study in-volved the entire staff because the data wascollected through peer observations. A tal1yform using Bloom's taxonomy was developed inorder to record the types and frequency ofteacher questions. The study provided anopportunity for an aspect of teaching to beexamined without being critical of any uneindividual. The data was analyzed by grade levciand school level. Thus, the staff was exp.c2sed tothe research aspect of TQM in a hands-oh waythat had meaning for them personally.

Collecting the data on an area designated asneeding improvement adds an element ofaccountability and importance to the improve-

4 51

Table 1Changes in Kinds of Questions Asked in

100% Elementary Math Classes at Thomasville

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

60%

25%

Knowledge Comprehension Application

15%

10% 11%

1% 0%I

Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

Thinking Skill Levels

Findings: Reduction in basic knowledge questions asked (60% to 25%). Increase inanalysis, synthesis, and evaluation questions asked.

ment endeavor. In this case, the data collecteddemonstrates the success of the effort to im-prove questioning skills.

It should also be noted that the whole staffreceived a variety of training to support the goalof increased use of higher-order questioning.Much of this training was organized and pro-vided by TQM team members.

Scott Elementary has used TQM as a means tomove from traditional, top-down structure tocollaborative decision making with emphasis on

1994/95

1993/94

teaming. Prior to the SERVE grant, the principalfunctioned as primary decision maker. At theend of the first year, a school leadership teamwas established in order to move to a morecollaborative form of decision making. Thisteam has representatives from all grade levelsand special areas. Their various responsibilitiesinclude the review of school operations andgoverning issues. In addition to the TQM teamand the leadership team, grade level teams workto carry out established goals. The entire schoolfaculty is involved in continuous improvement.

In the second year of the project, the TQM teambegan to look at the math curriculum, realizingthat types of questions asked by teachers intheir classrooms were a function of types ofcurriculum materials used. They decided topilot a new textbook. The results from this pilotwere successful and, in the third year, the newtextbook was fully implemented. Peer observa-tions continue to be utilized in order to monitorthe level of questioning by teachers.

At the end of the second year, the team becameconcerned about improving Social Studies testscores. The team reviewed the Georgia QualityCore Curriculum (QCC) objectives in SocialStudies and discovered that many teachers wereunfamiliar with some of the objectives. On-going research is being conducted on the rela-tionship between teacher ratings of the objec-tives and student test scores.

Under the supervision of David Bayless (Baylessand Associates), the TQM team is workingcollaboratively with the Georgia State Depart-ment of Education in order to provide informa-tion regarding the alignment of the currentSocial Studies curriculum with the requiredCurriculum Based Assessment (CBA).

As an outgrowth of the Social Studies align-ment project, the TQM team and the facultybecame interested in pursuing alternativeassessment strategies that could prove moreeffective than the current methods. In order tochange to authentic assessment, Scott Elemen-tary needs to find a process that takes intoconsideration the individuality of the students,the change in direction of educational goals,alignment of curriculum with assessment and.in turn, the continuous improvement of teach-ing strategies and instruction.

A goal-oriented school improvement plan \vasdeveloped and implemented at the beginning ofthe third year of the project. Because of thestudy of TQM and a reorganization in the schoolto site-based management, the school was ableto establish realistic and measurable goals.

Future plans include further training in thephilosophy and use of TQM for staff members

and parents. Participants in this training willmake up a quality team in order to identifyadditional issues which may need further studyStudents will be involved in goal setting andevaluation of quality work through the imple-mentation of a pilot study of portfolios andalternative assessment.

TQM team members plan to research the subjectof low achieving students in order to bettermeet their educational needs. Developmentallyappropriate activities, teaching strategies, learn-ing styles, and parental involvement will beareas of focus. The goal will be to increase theteam's knowledge about under-achievingstudents so that appropriate steps may be takento meet the needs of all students by modifyingthe instructional program.

Deer Lake Middle School,Tallahassee, FloridaTom Inserra, Principal99022 Deer lake WestTallahassee, FL 32231904-922-6545

This middle school, unlike the three previousschools, had a functioning school improvementteam and school improvement goals in placeprior to the project. However, after being se-lected as a SERVE pilot site, the principal se-lected a TQM team, which was different fromthe School Advisory Committee for SchoolImprovement/Site Council (a group of adminis-trators, teachers, parents, and students). TheTQM team consisted of a group of lead teachersfrom each grade level, a guidance counselor, andthe principal.

During the fall of 1992-93, (the initial year of theschool's involvement in TQM). Deer Lake's statedmission was "to develop appreciation andrespect for each individual and to prepare everystudent to be a responsible and successfulmember of our world." The agreed upon focusof the TQM project was to support those scu-dents currently not achieving success. As aresult of data collected through formal andinformal surveys, and after much discussion,team members decided to concentrate their

41 53

TOM Team's AnalysisoZ Factors Affecting Student Success

Behavior Attendance

Rem ralsbald ies

'teacherTraining

LearningSt rategies

Art iculat

urriculuniAssessment

Assessment

il 11.1,

Conduct Grades lelp andI finderAbsences

Learnitc St vles

qadt

c,,optrat 0.Consult at ion

Successfor

Students

Physical Wellness

Emotional &Mental

Familysupport

(Fall 1994)

Peer Tutors/Use of Aides

Labs

to Heteto,4eneousSuccess (i an lr41

Hinders toSuccess

TimeManagemen

Strategies forHelp Sessions/ huprovemen

Instructional Student TQNISupport Activities

(ContinuousImprovement)

work on the delivery of services to st udentsidentified as "learning disabled" (LD) by Florida'sExceptional Student Education (ESE) guide-lines.

In 1991-92, the year prior to the project, DeerLake's Content Mastery Lab had been designedto provide the least restrictive environment forLD students by allowing them to belmainstreamed (ro e ceive instruction in regularclasses) in all of th ir academic courses, whileproviding out-of-class assistance from an ESEinstructor. Even though the Content MasteryLab offered support for LD students, exist ingdata on these students' success it) the classroomsuggested that the delivery of services could beimproved. The TQM t eat n decided to apply

%,,pvcial- \red:.

Registratiiiti

Scheduling

Defined asstudentsgrowing

academicallyand affectively

TQM to revise the delivers. ,.ystein andthe success of t he "mai nst reamed" st udent

In the second project year. t he TQ t cam held afour-day, pre-school work Mop to t rain addttional faculty members in I he (walk v approok Iiand the use of TQM took. Findings from t lw1092-93 analysis of data on st udents ident it ied

were shared with t he group. I. 'sing inputreceived, t he TQN1 team was able It hart t litelements necessary to ensure the stlt t

students, using a cause-effeet diagralll I1A itabove. (A cause-et tect diagrolo allow, you It'ollt factors thought t o all eo a problemdesired outcome. It k an click Ike IQ \I to,1 tothroinstormintLdkcw,intz. and ott:onizne..:po,ihle(*all'-e, ill it st t Ilk I Wed V,1 \

5 43EST COPY AVAILABLt

In addition, during the second year, the TQMteam continued to collect data and monitor theachievement of LD students and expanded itsfocus to collect data on the academic progress ofidentified at-risk students in grades six, seven,and eight. The school's at-risk resource teacherand the computer resource specialist joined theteam in order to provide additional assistance indata collection and analysis. At the same time.three members of the original team elected toleave the team due to time demands. Thissuggests that it is important to be clear up frontabout the time and energy that will be involvedin team participation. During this year, the teamdiscussed the data and identified several concerns. Teachers of "regular" classes were unableto meet the wide range of special needs of theLD and at-risk students in their classes. Addi-tionally, minority students wereunderrepresented in "advanced" classes. Thesefindings led the team to recommen-1 to theschook Site Council an institutional change forthe third year (1994-95); the elimination of"tracking" of students such that language arts,social studies, and science classes would beheterogeneously grouped in grade six. The SiteCouncil agreed and plans to implement thechange were designed.

At the beginning of the 1994-9.5 school ea r(third project year), the returning TQM teamconsisted of the dean of curriculum, a guidancecounselor, a language arts teacher, the Excep-tional Student Education (ESE) coordinator, andthe at-risk coordinator. Two sixth grade teacherswere added to the team. There was a principalchange during the summer of 1994, so a newlyappointed principal also represented a newaddition to the team.

Throughout the ',Tar, the TQM team exploredimplementation issues related to the sixth gradeheterogeneously grouped classes, collectingeacher and st udent survey data and analyz:ng

enrollments and grade and test data. One

finding was that the number of students need-ing special help in each class was more manage-able with the change and that behavior prob-lems in classrooms were reduced. They foundthat developing the necessary variety of teach-ing techniques and activities required a greatamount of time and that classes did not end upgrouped according to the suggested formula(60% advanced, 30% regular, and 10% specialneeds). They also found that out-of-class sup-port was necessary for the success of specialneeds students and that 60% of the students ingrade six who were unsuccessful academicallyreceived no out-of-class support. The TQM teampresented their data to a meeting of sixth andseventh grade teachers. As a result, teachers onseventh grade teams decided to implementheterogeneous grouping during the 1995-96school year.

Thus, this third project year was a busy one withthe team experiencing success in writing a planfor the implementation of the sixth gradeheterogeneous project, collecting data onimplen kentation, and presenting the findings toteachers.

In the spring of 1095, the TQM team began workon an evaluation that would bring their three-year project efforts together under the htadingof increasing student opportunities to learn andto be successful. The Westat facilitators wereinstrumental in helping tl ein conceptualizethis evaluation report.

The most significant perceived impact of par-ticipating in the SERVE TQM project was t hegrowth in teacher understanding of the need toba::e decisions on data rather than intuition andthe need to continuously monitor programsand strategies. Because the TQNI team wasformed and supported with grant funds andoperated as a "special project" team in the school,it is not known wh;it impact the ending of thegrant will have on its continuity.

55

c.atteuesaa....urcsaAavLor,nsdaurtso.,--,. .4

Ordering Information1. Complete order form and mail with check or purchase order to SERVE, 345 South Magnolia Drive,

Suite D-23, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)671-6000. Make check or purchase order out to SERVE(Federal HY': 59-6000-821).

2. Discounts are available for most SERVE products when yoll purchase units of fifty or more. Fortitles marked wit h an asterisk (*), quantities of 50-Q9 cost $7.00 each: orders of 100 or more are $6.00 .each.

3. If you are requesting an invoice, your order must include a purchase order number.

4. Ae ship by U.S. Mail and United Parcel Service. Calculate ,/our shipping charges from the tablebelow. Shipping charges will be higher for special orders and shipping outside the continental U.S.Please allow two weeks for delivery from the time we receive the order in our office. If you requirespecial shipping arrangements;let us know. In most cases. we can accommodate your needs. Publica-tion prices are subject to change.

For more information regarding SERVEs products and ordering procedures, please call 800-352-6001.

Shipping & Handling Charges

Up to $30.00 $ 2.50

$30.01 to $60.00 $ 5.00

$60.01 to $100.00 $ 7.50

$100.01 to $150.00 $ 10.00

$150.01 to $200.00 $ 12.50

$100.01 & above call for price

Publications Listing

Description Item # Price

Action Research: Perspectives from Teacher's Classrooms MSARP $8.00*

Appreciating Differences: Teaching and Learning in a Culturally DiverseClassroom HTADI $8.00*

ECESI FREE

HTSEC $8.00*

Assessment in Early Childhood Education: Status of the Issue

Children Exposed to Drugs: Meeting Their Needs

5 6la

Children Exposed to Drugs: What Policymakers Can Do PBCED $1.00

Comprehensive School Improvement HTCSI $8.00*. _.. --n -r

Continuity in. Early Childhood Education: A Framework for Home, School,and Community Linkages ECECE FREE

Designing Teacher Evaluation Systems that Support Professional Growth RDTES $8.00

Families and Schools: An Essential Partnership SSFSP FREE

FPPLG $8.00Future Plans Planning Guide

How to Assess Student Performane in Science: Going Beyond Multiple-Choice Tests RDSPS $8.00

Interagency Collaboration: Improving the Delivery of Services toHTICO $8.00*Children & Families

Issues to Consider in-Moving Beyond a Minimal Competency High_ School Gradtiation Test -* ' RDMCT FREE

. . . '

Leaderghip for Collaboration: A Training Program TRNLC Call

Leirning by'Sii:Ving: A Compendium 'of Ideas for Service Learning HTLBS -"$6.00*:1

A New Framework for School Accountability Systems

Overcoming flamers to School Reform in the Southeast

Promising Programs in Native Education

Reducing Baby Bottle Tooth Decay

Reducing School Violence: Building a Framework for School Safety

Reengineering I-hgh Schools for Student Success

RDFRA $3.00

RDBAR ;$3.00

LNPNE $5.00

RBBTD 'FREE

HTRSV $8.00*

HTRHS $8.00*

A Resource Book on Transitions TRANRB FREE

ResoureeS for. ScIToT1T-mpro- vetTirii HTRSI -1-870-04.

Rural Schools on the Road to Reform EDRL1R $8.00

Scaling Up School Improvement Through Total Quality Management:The Pinellas County Story RDTQM $8.00*

.. A

Schools for the 21st Century: New Roles for Teachers and Principals HTSTC $8.00*

Sharing Success in the Seutheast: Mathematics and Science Education SSMS1 FREE

_3EsT poPY AVNIA8Li 5 7

Sharing Success in the Southeast: Preschool-to-School Transition

Sharing Success: Promising Service-Learning Programs

South Pointe Elementary School (Year 1): A Public-Private Partnership

South Pointe Elementary School (Year 2): A Public-Private Partnership

South Pointe Elementary School (Year 3): Assessment Project

Southern Crossroads: A Demographic Look at the Southeast

Special Offer #I--School Improvement

Special Offer *2Future Plans Video & Discussion & Planning Guides

Special Offer #3--Technology Mathematics, and Science

Special Offer #4Southern Crossroads

Supporting Family Involvement in Early Childhood Education:A Guide for Business

Total Quality Management: Fad or 'The Real Thing?" an ImplementationStudy

Using Technology to Improve Teaching and Learning

Youth Apprenticeship: A School-to-Work Transition Program

Videotape ListingDrug-Free Schools: A Generation of Hope

_

Future Plans (Videotape) and Discussion Guide- _ ^- -. _

Passages: Providing Continuity from Preschool to School

School Improvement: Journey Toward Change-Southern Crossroads: A Demographic look at the Southeast

Successful Mathematics and Science Practices: General Audiences

Successful Mathematics and Science Practices: Policymakers

Successful Mathematics and Science Practices: Teachers/ Practitioners

58

SSPST FREE

SSPSL FREE

RDSPI FREE

RDSP2 FREE

RDSP3 FREE

SRSCR $8.00*

P 01 $25.00

P 02 $25.00

P 03 $25.00

P 04 $25.00

SRSFI $5.00

RDTQM $5.00

HTTEC $8.00*77-1-

HTYAP $8.00*

VTDFS $19.95

FPPAK $19.95

VTPST $19.95

VTCSI $19.95

VTSCR $19.95

VTMS3 $19.95

VTMS6 $19.95

VTMS9 $19.95

Order FormName:

Title:

Address: 3 home 3 work

Cit y:

Phone: 3 home 3 work (

Fax: 3 home 3 work (

State: Zip:

Quantity Description Item No. Unit Price Total

Subtotal

Non-exempt Florida residentsMail to: add 7% sales tax:SERVE345 South Magnolia Drive S & H*

Suite D-23Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Total

Please photocopy this form for future orders Florida Tax Exemption #:

59