Achieving Education Quality - Report Example

Introduction School administrators of today must be seen and judged capable in dealing with multiple quality and improvement issues. Unlike in the past, the challenges that a brand new school face in our generation are tougher and more complicated in order to remain competitive and successful in providing quality education. To help us decipher some of the puzzling issues relative to achieving quality in education, it will be of value to look into the discourses of various educational scholars and their peers. For this four-year old learning institution, issues and challenges identified that its school principal must address include the following: a) inclusion of technology in teaching; b) subcontraction or mediation; c) progressivism vs traditionalism; d) cultural diversity or multiculturalism; and e) competition against other schools. Currently the school has to contend with different issues and foremost of these is achieving education quality through the careful balance of policy directions, curriculum programs and maintaining relationships with all the important stakeholders of the school, namely: the community, the parents, students and fellow teachers. After each discussion on these issues, recommendations and justifications are presented. Major Educational Issues A. Inclusion of informations and communication technology in teaching The inclusion of information communications and technology-based education is one of the most pressing issues that the school must resolve amid other challenges that its administrator need to contend to with regard to improving the quality of education through the implementation of reform policies. To understand the concept of education quality, it is said that it is best to postpone any attempt to define it until one has inquired into various management and educational literature. Max Weber (1864-1920) posit that "Definition can be attempted, if at all, only at the conclusion of the study." In the understanding of educational theorists and educational leaders everywhere, education quality is often associated with fitness for use, the satisfaction or conformance of needs, requirements and expectations of constituencies, such as parents, school management committees, teachers, students and policy makers, among others (as cited in Cheng & Tam, 1997). However, policies for educational initiatives often fail due to lack of understanding of the complex and intricate nature of education quality (Cheng & Tam, 1997). On the part of school administrators, such often create a miserable problem. The challenge of adapting and customizing the various needs of the school usually become a leadership dilemma when no reasons can justify the end. Day, Harris, & Hadfield (2001) argued that these needs may be comprised of the level of staff competence and motivation, school culture, and current level of student achievements. B. Centralization vs. Decentralization Another major issue that the school principal face relate to the shift from centralized to decentralized system in managing the learning institution. Devolving or decentralizing the school system is often not detrimental to the way the principal will manage the school, however, such democratic process can sometimes pose leadership dilemma, especially when the school principal want to decide fast but will still have to wait for the decision or consent of other parties. In a devolved or self-managing system, leadership or managing the school is distributed, thus, the power of the school administrator is diminishing while responsibilities increase. In turn, the ideals and vision of the administrator can sometimes lag behind, or at worst, sacrificed to give way to the decision of the majority, which may often not the best possible solution for a conflict or a problem. Day, Harris, & Hadfield (2001) identified such dilemma of choosing whether to ‘subcontract or mediate,’ which refers to the limitation of the school principal’s role in the context of externally initiated change. Often, the principal must balance how change within the school can be introduced without inviting tensions such as overprescribing rules or under-preparing staff or the constituents when change are to be implemented. C. Cultural Diversity and Multiculturalism As the world moves very quickly towards becoming a ‘global village,’ boundaries between people and nations are removed, allowing fast and frequent interactions (as cited in Cheng, 2003). In recent years, the new school attracted diverse set of students with English and non-English speaking background, turning it into a multicultural institution as a result. In a multicultural setting, no students must be left behind just because the school culture or curriculum is not adjusted for the multi-racial population of the school. Cheng (2003) noticed that the old paradigm of education reform with narrow conception can no longer meet the demands of a rapidly-transforming society brought about by globalization and the advent of information technology. D. Progressivism vs. Traditionalism As Ronald Edmonds (1982) once argued in his essay, “Programs of School Improvement,” the family has a critical role in determining whether or not students flourish in school despite the school’s responsibility to ensure that students function adequately in school. Such argument may pose an immense challenge for educators and school administrators, especially when dealing with conservative parents. Anxieties or fears are sometimes manifested among parents whose traditional views of things are opposite with the more progressive or idealistic teachers. Most conservative parents misconceive any proposed change as irrelevant if they deemed such change go beyond the traditional mode of learning. In such dilemma, school administrator must deal with overbearing or overprotective parents. Also, parents become too suspicious or skeptical about initiatives for change. Sometimes, the bigger challenge comes when teachers and parents fail to bond with one another for fear that conflicts may arise or stirred should discussions become heated. E. Competition with other Schools Competition between schools is one of the pressing issues that the new school currently face. With sound leadership and system governance, success will come easily as the school become competitive. Some critics accuse some governance models – which espouses the consolidation of authority for managing learning institutions under system governance boards and coordinating boards – as excessively bureaucratic, not flexible with market demands and a threat to campus aspirations (McTaggart, 1999). Because of the criticisms hurled against such structure, school administrators have to deal with clamors to dissolve or reduce such system hegemony, which may be detrimental in all effort geared towards making the school competitive. School administrators then must address the need to encourage school governors in raising the quality and standards of education in the school. Because it is said that the governors’ role in school improvement is valuable and whose involvement ranges from being a strategic partner, critical friend, and quality assurance specialist who will do the monitoring and accountability testing (Earley, 2003). Recommendations A. Inclusion of informations and communication technology in teaching As students grow accustomed with the latest in digital communications facilities, school administrators, teachers and families can no longer ignore this reality but should instead examine and embrace such fact of life. Experts believe “within each society and institution everday reality is taken for granted: treated as largely unquestioned” (as cited in Hargreaves, 1995). In his study of the school culture models, Hargreaves (1995) suggest that by studying the reality-defining aspects of culture, common problems that the school encounters and have grown accustomed to will be easily determined. School administrators must map out approaches to knowing the common issues and problems that the school encounters and will encounter, which will be helpful in setting its own set of standards. As Cheng and Tam (1997) indicated in their study, every school may have its own set of education quality criteria that compels itself to meet. However, as educators and policymakers become increasingly aware, teachers want to prepare their students for life in the 21st-century as more and more students spend more time online. The school culture (i.e., a cause, object or an effect of school improvement), among others, must be prioritized by the school administrator in setting the school’s target. Day, et al. (2001) argue that culture bear an inherent impact in influencing student outcomes. Thus, to bridge the divide among idealistic teachers and conservative parents, the school administrator must push for IT literacy awareness programmes that will the constituents and orient them about why embracing change is necessary for their sake of their children. Through such programmes, common but unfounded fears are allayed and misconceptions about ICT learning are corrected. Parental and teacher support is necessary, among other concerns, in order for the school to convince policymakers who will decide about the fate of the school’s infrastructure enhancements. B. Centralization vs. Decentralization Education reform measures such as decentralizing system of governance in education must be carefully articulated to meet school aspirations and goals set. As with democracy – which is often not perfect but the best available state one can get – the same “may be true of school governance at school ...” (as cited in Early, 2003). Under a democratic process in education governance, the school principal must carefully balance the necessities and priorities over wants. Being the school’s principal, one must be prepared to deal with such scenario. Blase & Blase (1999) suggested the readiness of the administrator to enact leadership role that is open for the teachers and others to share responsibility and authority. In other words, the democratic ideals of such leader is founded in the notion of empowering constituencies to scale up their involvement and commitment to do their best for education and not just for the sake of their own children and to achive the goals and vision set forth. The vision and values must also be effectively communicated to all constituents, which may include the parents of the children, policymakers and governing boards. In the leadership dimension model, Robinsons (2007) suggested that school governance are comprised of several activities to become competitive. His leadership model include - 1) Establishing goals and expectations, 2) Strategic resourcing, 3) Planning, coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum, 4) Promoting and participating in teacher learning and developments, and 5) Ensuring an orderly and supportive environment. For the principal, the challenges of such leadership must be confronted with virtuosity and courage. Contrary to the traditionalist principals who are preoccupied with the authoritarian quest for power and the imposition of their personal vision to others, principals in a devolved system can work with others as equals and place school vision above their personal goals and needs. Notwithstanding the participation of parents in the decision-making, principals must be encouraged to align their values with the core values that the school and the community at large support. Notman (2007) underscored that such values alignment can be used to gauge and predict potential outcomes from their decision-making processes, including crises management. It is said that the principal’s decision can be shaped by reinforcing or conflicting values held by the different stakeholders with and outside the school landscape (as cited in Notman, 2007). But when the principal has carefully understood the concerns of constituents, such can be used as an effective tool in gaining support from these constituents, including the governing boards and policymakers. Although disappointing both the teachers and parents may be least of all things that a school principal will do, the operational autonomy given the school principal may be used to counter any disagreements that may result from any decision or compromise that will be arrived at. Without the support or mentoring from parents and teachers, such reform measures may be hard to execute. In a study conducted by Shulman, Sullivan & Glanz (2008), they identified instructional and evaluative functions as important factors that can serve as keys in ensuring and promoting the best interests of the school, teacher and students. Fine-tuning instructional process is also suggested as an important systematic reform that can affect students’ achievement. Moreover, the school principal must articulate the vision and values that every constituent must share in furthering the growth of the institution. As the one in the forefront of governance, the principal should play the role not just in distributing the leadership but developing trust and information sharing. As Earley (2003) argued that power and authority vested with headship are too difficult to shift, the principal’s call then is to facilitate that shift towards interdependence. Through interdependence, leadership is not only shared but real partnership is established. Nevertheless the power vested among all constituencies are not unequel because all are involved. C. Cultural Diversity and Multiculturalism Realizing that students is the center of education (Cheng, 2003), the principal should facilitate tailor-made learning programs for students of any race, ethnic background or cultures. As the world becomes globalized, educational reform must be initiated to bridge the divide or indifference that students with multicultural background face in order to sustain the numerous developments that continually transform not only the individual but society in general. On this standpoint, teachers must be kept aware that students rose from different cultural or national backgrounds and their role is to be more tolent of students with non-English speaking backgrounds. Because as some studies would point out, the teacher should not expect their students to read or interpret texts from the cultural lens of the educator. By continuously doing so, the educator aggravates what would otherwise be an enjoyable and loveable learning experience. Cheng (2003) argued education reform is gradually taking shape to meet the demands of the times. It was suggested then that society must evolve into a ‘multiple intelligence society’ to provide the necessary knowledge and intelligence base. With such society, multiple progress will hence be supported. In addition to this, the students and their learning should be adjusted to the demands of a globalized and even localized society. This means, both local and global resources, support and networks can be utilized to help create and hone students achieve their potential. For any systematic change to push through, the principal must foster collaboration with the school constituencies. The school principal must also ensure educator commitments in teaching in a multicultural institution. To do so, the administrator must empower and involve teachers to carry out their functions and responsibilities amid a changing environment (Cheng and Tam, 1997). Apparently parents’s level of knowledge and support must be increased also. (Day, Harris & Hardfield, 2001). Such support must obtain the trust of various influential groups within the school community and must make an impression that the school is bent on implementing its strategic goals or vision. D. Progressivism vs. Traditionalism In ways once unimaginable, the digital revolution is fast transforming the way people learn. The school principal’s role then must be that of a bridge to connect the divide between the idealistic faculty with conventional parentage. To do so, the principal must carefully tread between the traditional models of learning and the modern approach. Through this, fears and skepticisms of conventional parents can be appeased. As an immediate course of action, the principal must orient teachers and administrative support to bear with conservative parents with maximum tolerance so as not to disappoint parents. This way, heated confrontations between parents and teachers may be avoided. Moreover, principal can earn the support and cooperation of both constituents in laying down the foundation that can leverage the promise of digital media to transform learning institutions that meet the demands of a globalized society The school administrator can provide assurance to conservative families that instituting ICT in learning and teaching fit into the vision of the education sector to equip students for the future. For instance, the school principal can still pursue mixing traditional with nontraditioanl mode of learning. Likewise, nontraditional learning efforts (e.g., gathering information and communicating using digital media) when employed together with the traditional will not only fortify students’ mastery of the traditional skills of writing, reading and mathematics, but can in fact be reinforced to prepare the students in the future. The parents are not thes sole party in ensuring effective governace. Also central in instituting ICT-based learning are the teachers. Phelps, Graham and Kerr (2004) argued that teachers are accountable in fostering computer abilities at all levels of the education process. Researchers point out that professional development programs offered to educators are limited (as cited in Phelps , Graham, & Kerr, 2004). To equip the teachers, their training must include making them not only technologically adept but proficient in helping leverage the promise of digital media in transforming the learning experience in classrooms that can help motivate children to study. Teachers must be trained to achieve a certain level of comfort with technical learning in order to become more open to the possibilities of the technological advancements, which are factors that can help enrich students’ knowledge. Likewise, educating the parents as mentors of their children, who are like the teachers, can also be an effective strategy in bridging the digital divide. Thus, when parent-teacher relationships are strong, the principal can easily obtain support from all constituencies, especially in managing and governing the institution. E. Competition Sometimes, the very essence of competition is to invite leaders of any institution, not just to inspect and look back into its own weaknesses, limitations and the threats to its success, but to appraise its capacity. Competition can also be of great help in improving one’s output or service when one learned from its past mistakes. Yet in a fast changing educational scenario, competition is always existent. Since such comes as an unavoidable presence, the school administrator must be emboldened to apply relevant leadership dimensions in managing and leading the institution to become competitive. Moreover, Earley (1999) suggested that the transformational model of leadership bode well when a school need to be competitive because “it give emphasis to building vision, establishing commitment to agreed goals, providing intellectual stimulation, offering individualized support, and explicating and encouraging high expectations for staff” (as cited in Earley, 2003). The system governance model by MacTaggart (1999) meanwhile contemplates that governance systems of learning institution function better when boards and system leaders can appraise the system’s capacity, learn from past mistakes, and act decisively to strengthen weaknesses. Both models can be applied in ensuring quality education. On that account, education quality assurance must also be considered, which can be considered as an important tool in measuring competitiveness. Quality assurance in education must be brought up by the school administrators before the governing boards and policymakers to help them decide the future of the institution. To this end, parents, governing boards and policymakers have the right to accurate information or data about the quality of education being served and will be served for the students, including proofs that the educational institution meets standards of quality education. Although difficult to prepare, Shulman, Sullivan, & Glanz (2008) revealed that such dilemma must be addressed because these can sometimes impede the principal’s supervisory function (e.g., mentoring, coaching, preparing action research and professional development). As for the principal leading, coming up with a quality education assurance can be done through the concerted effort of all parties concerned (Cheng, 2003). Parents’ role, on the other hand, is helpful in providing the check-and-balance. For the principal, it should not be setting out ways to change these parents but encouraging them to provide continuous support and guidance for collaborative effort in improving not only the children of these parents, but for the benefit of the whole school, community and the society in general. Finally, teachers, like parents, must be provided with basic management trainings to avoid conflicts. Expectations must also be articulated on how parents and students are expected to perform their respective duties and commitments towards ensuring they recognize the role of each other in improving and enhancing the quality of education. Bibliography Blase, J, & Blase, J. (1999). Implementation of shared governance for instructional improvement: principals' perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration. Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in Education. Quality Assurance Education, 5 (1), 22-31 Cheng, Y. C (2003). Quality Assurance in Education: internal, interface, and future. Quality Assurance in Education, 11, (4), 202-213 Day, C., Harris, A., and Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school leadership. International Journal in Education, 4 (1), 39-56 Earley, P. (2003). Leaders or Followers? Governing Bodies and their Role in School Leadership. Educational Managment & Administration, 31 (4), 353-365 Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of School Improvement: An Overview. Educational Leadership. Hargreaves, D.H. (1995). School Culture, School Effectiveness and School Improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, University of Cambridge, 6 (1), 23-46 McTaggart, T.J. (1999). Seven Steps to Successful System Governance. Trusteeship, 7 (4), 18-22 Notman, R. (2007). Connecting with the self: How we might assist the personal development of school leaders. ACEL International Conference on New Imagery for Schools and Schooling, 1-12 Phelps, R., Graham, A, & Kerr, B. (2004). Teachers and ICT: Exploring a metacognitive approach to professional development. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20 (1), 49-68 Prokopyev, O. Conceptualizing electoral revolutions: challenges and promises. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:e8SuC31JRTsJ:www.ceu.hu/polsci/ADC/papers/OleksiyProkopyev.doc+weber+define+revolution+primary+source&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ph Robinsons, V. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Acel Monograph, (41) Shulman, V., Sullivan S., & Glanz, J. (2008). The New York City school reform: consequences for supervision of instruction. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11 (4), 407-425 Read More