Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity

8 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ

Quality Management in Education:Building Excellence and Equity

in Student PerformanceJACQUELINE S. GOLDBERG, NORTH BROWARD COUNTY (FLORIDA) HOSPITAL DISTRICT

BRYAN R. COLE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

© 2002, ASQ

This research is based on a study of Brazosport ISD,an exemplary school district in Texas that used aquali ty management approach that resulted ingreater equity and higher student performance. Facedwith deteriorating state test scores in several schools,particularly those with a high population of economi-cally disadvantaged students, this district elected toapply the philosophy, tools, and methods of qualitymanagement as a means to raise student achieve-ment through system alignment and improvement ofinstructional processes.

The findings of the study reveal a school district thatsuccessfully transformed its approach to education,redirecting its goals and processes to assure the suc-cess of every student. This article provides an analysisof the approach and deployment of changes, outcomesobtained, and implications for continuous improve-ment in other public school systems.

In validation of the success of its new methodologyand the results achieved Brazosport ISD won the TexasQuality Award in 1998 and received a site visit for theMalcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1999,the only school district to date to achieve both honors.

Key words: educational reform, instructional process,Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, schoolimprovement, state testing, Texas Quality Award, totalquality management

INTRODUCTIONEducational leaders in the new millennium face a dra-matic state of uncertainty. There is a great deal of pres-sure to achieve a range of performance expectations ina climate of student performance and financialaccountability. Pressure is also mounting from thoseseeking to create alternatives to public education. Howeducational leaders perform the role of change agentmay well determine the success and future of publicschools. The direction for change must guide schools tobe more productive, effective, efficient, and human.

One school district in Texas, Brazosport ISD, hasbeen an exemplar for bringing about effective change.In 1998 it was the first public-education recipient ofthe Texas Quality Award. This award recognizesorganizations that are outstanding role models forperformance excellence and in the application ofquality management principles. In 1999 BrazosportISD was one of only two districts nationwide thatreceived a site visit from the Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Award program.

This study reports the research of a yearlong quali-tative study of Brazosport ISD. The study analyzed anddocumented the approach and deployment of qualitymanagement at Brazosport ISD that led to winning theTexas Quality Award, and analyzes the outcomes andimplications for continuous improvement. In thatBrazosport ISD has shown tremendous improvement inthe area of student achievement, this study revealsstrategies that can be applied toward increasing equityand raising the performance and overall quality ofeducation in other districts.

Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 8

Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance

Background on ReformReform efforts in education have focused on a variety ofissues mirroring the problems of the decades in whichthey were endorsed. Dobyns and Crawford-Mason(1994) state that in every decade since the 1940s, therehas been at least one major study of American publiceducation, and all of them concluded that public edu-cation was bad and getting worse. Despite the bestefforts of educational specialists and large amounts ofmoney being dedicated to reform, quality has not beensystemically attained. This is partly because initiativesstemming from “A Nation at Risk” and other similarreports did not recognize that the problems of educationwere systemic and therefore recommended solutionsthat only aimed at improving parts of the system ratherthan the whole (National Commission on Excellence inEducation 1983). The abundance of data suggests thatreforms have failed to remove the problems they wereintended to solve. Perkinson (1995) identified fouroverriding problems in education. They are: 1) aninadequate emphasis on academic subjects, 2) a lackof standards, 3) poor teaching, and 4) an absence ofleadership. Most important, reformers called for excel-lence and equity so that all students would receive thesame high-quality education.

The prevailing current opinion is that reformrequires fundamental and comprehensive change(Herman and Herman 1994). Morris (1996) notes:“Organization theorists have long argued that schooldistricts suffer from uncertain goals and indeterminatetechnology, a difficult environment for identifyingappropriate innovations. Moreover, reformers and gov-erning agencies push districts into adoption with legis-lation, court orders, and administrative restrictions andpull them in with rewards of funding and otherresources. Such innovations may or may not be wellsuited to the problems they are expected to solve or wellreceived by those they are intended to aid.” (p. 22)

Senge et al. (2000, 77) note: “Most schools aredrowning in events. Each time (an event occurs), thesuperintendent (or other staff member) does a heroic jobof fixing the problem.... But there’s a real chance thateach quick fix will do more harm than good in the longrun.” Piecemeal attempts at reform cannot do much but

perpetuate the status quo because they tend to be over-whelmed by existing institutional structures and atti-tudes. Schools that learn and improve are those thatapproach change from a systems perspective (Senge et al.2000). The more systemic the change, the more theschool embodies change in behaviors, culture, and struc-ture, and the more lasting the change will be. W. EdwardsDeming (1994, 50) maintained that “a system is a net-work of interdependent components that work together totry to accomplish the aim of the system.” Thus, to bringabout effective change in schools, their components andinterdependencies must be understood and managed as asystem directed at a well-articulated aim.

QUALITY MANAGEMENT ANDTQM IN EDUCATIONTotal quality management (TQM) was first introduced asa business management approach in the post-World WarII era when Deming and others successfully reinventedthe Japanese economy. Beginning in the early 1980s,American business leaders looked to the philosophy, prin-ciples, and TQM tools to improve the economy. Morerecently, education leaders have begun to recognize thepotential for TQM applied to educational organizations.

Quality management provides a connectionbetween outcomes and the process by which outcomesare achieved. If, as many people realize, the cause offailures in education is a problem in design, qualitymanagement may be regarded as an ideal systemicprocess for managing change in public education(Frazier l997).

There has been some reluctance to apply qualitypractices to education, yet central to Deming’s meth-ods and management philosophy is an insistence thatanything can be made or done better. Americans havesteadfastly held the belief that education is the fortifi-cation against poverty and social unrest. There exists,however, a subtle pessimistic attitude that people aredoing the best they can with what they have. The mes-sage appears to be that education can only be success-ful with certain students. Deming (1992, 6) writesthat with its “underuse, misuse, and abuse of skilland knowledge...the United States may be the most

www.asq.org 9



underdeveloped nation in the world.” Improvementwith all levels of students must be viewed as not onlypossible but also essential.

The decision to use TQM principles to guide changein schools is made for a variety of reasons. Some schooldistricts are encouraged by business partnerships andtraining; others see the similarities with effective schoolsresearch (Lezotte 1992). In 1989 the State Department ofEducation in Louisiana made effective schools/schoolimprovement process available to all districts for plan-ning and implementing improvement. In the schoolyear 1991-1992, the state made training in quality man-agement available to schools on a pilot test basis. Theexperiences of schools and districts were positive, and thedepartment expanded its training and assistance to moreschools (Hord and Monk 1997). In 1982 the SouthHuntington school system in Long Island, N.Y., becameinterested in bringing quality processes into its educa-tional setting. It found local businesses such asGrunman, Hazeltine Corporation, and Estee Lauder will-ing to share what it knew of quality management(Wilson 1993). In Chicago, the impetus was a majorchange in state law in 1989. Legally mandated redistrib-ution of power and resources led city educators toembrace quality as a key part of the process of change.

Whatever the determining incentive, where qualitymanagement has been applied to education, it has madea huge difference (Dobyns and Crawford-Mason 1994).Quality is creating an environment where educators,parents, government officials, community representa-tives, and business leaders work together to provide students with the resources they need to meet currentand future academic, business, and societal needs(Arcaro 1995). As has been the case in industry, whenquality management comes to education, some long-held ideas, specifically about how to manage the teach-ing/learning process, have to change. In some instances,the ideas are not new but long had been ignored. In anycase, education can be improved through quality man-agement (Tribus 1993).

The industrial model does not transfer perfectly intoeducation. Successful practitioners take the best fromindustrial experiences and combine this with the bestlearning theories and methods. The result is a hybridthat varies from school to school (Marsh 1995).

There appear to be three levels of application ofquality management in education. The first level is tothe management processes of a school. Sample schoolprocesses include strategic planning, recruiting andstaff development, deploying resources, and alignmentof what is taught, how it is taught, and how it isassessed. The next level is teaching quality to students.Students are recognized as both customers and workersin the educational system. Administrators need toinvolve students in their own education by trainingthem to evaluate the learning process and acceptresponsibility for their learning. What the learning willlook like is no longer predecided. Educators know whatthey want to evaluate, but there are many choices as tohow the students arrive at the goals set by them and bytheir teachers (Herman and Herman 1994).

Schools that learn and improve are those thatapproach change from a systems perspective.

The more systemic the change, the more the schoolembodies change in behaviors, culture, and

structure, and the more lasting the change will be.

The highest level of quality principles is in learning.This is where it impacts the classroom. To achieve thedesired results, educators must question their coreteaching and learning processes and methods. Qualitystandards are established for each work process thatresults in improving grades and test scores. When thefocus becomes instructional processes and studentlearning, the impact of quality management is the greatest. This represents Brazosport ISD’s most significant change. The benefit of this focus is furtherevidenced by the 2001 Baldrige Award winners in educa-tion: Chugach School District (CSD) in Anchorage,Alaska, and Pearl River School District (PRSD) in PearlRiver, N.Y. Through systemic changes and a consistentemphasis on student achievement, both districts havemade significant improvements. Since 1998, the CSDincreased the percentage of its students who took collegeentrance exams from 0 percent to 70 percent. Results onthe California Achievement Tests improved significantlyin all content areas from 1995 to 1999 (seewww.chugachschools.com). PRSD increased the

10 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ



percentage of students graduating with a New YorkRegents diploma from 63 percent in 1996 to 86 percentin 2001. PRSD has improved advanced placement (AP)course performance from 34 percent of the studentsachieving a “3” or better in 1997 to 76 percent in 2001while dramatically increasing the percentage of studentstaking the AP courses (see www.pearlriver.k12.ny.us).Further results of these two quality-driven school districtscan be seen at www.nist.gov/public_affairs/chugach.htmland www.nist.gov/public_affairs/pearl river.html.

The TQM philosophy manifested by these quality-driven districts is built upon tenets that can be appliedto any organization. They are systems thinking, cus-tomer focus, continuous improvement, managementby fact, participatory management, professional devel-opment, teamwork, leadership, and long-term plan-ning (Baldrige National Quality Program 2001).Brazosport ISD, as well as Chugach and PRSD,embraced each of these in their quest for excellence.

SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGYThe qualitative methodology was chosen for this studybased upon the assumptions and compatibility of theprocess to the goals of the research. This research para-digm, also referred to as “naturalistic,” is ideographicin that the purpose is to document one particular caseso readers may potentially transfer and apply the find-ings into their own culture (Erlandson et al. 1993).Naturalistic evaluators reject the idea that social realityis reducible in the same manner as physical reality;therefore, methods used to study social reality must dif-fer. The goal in qualitative research is to understandrather than to know.

Naturalistic research can be defined as an in-depthand timely focus on a group of people interacting witheach other, their tools, and their environment (Hall1998). Participants in the study include the researcherand the people who are being observed and interviewed.Scott (1995, 51) notes that:

“One of the key factors of this emphasis is theidea that behavior is based on a perception ofreality as socially constructed. The individual’sinternal representation of the environment is

referenced to a cultural framework that is constantly evolving. Reality construction is anongoing process, carried on at the macro levelby ‘science, the professions, and the mass media[which] operate to create new categories, typifi-cations, and causal connections.’”

Scott further points out that individuals also con-tribute to that conclusion at the micro level by “appropri-ating and employing these broader cultural frameworksbut also improvise and invent new understandings andinterpretations that guide their daily activities.”

It is the goal of this type of study for the researcherto observe and explore human behavior in a particularcontext and then weave a narrative that accurately andhonestly reflects the lives and voices of a group of peo-ple (Spradley 1979). This type of narrative is calledthick description. Through thick description, theresearcher attempts to uncover meaning.

The “particular context” for this study was aschool district in Texas—Brazosport ISD. Naturalisticontology suggests that realities are entities that can-not be understood in isolation from their context.Naturalistic research also calls for the researcher to bethe data-gathering instrument. This enables the iden-tification and understanding of the realities and inter-actions that will be encountered. This researcher usedpurposive sampling to determine subjects for thisstudy. The people were identified by their participationin the change processes that were being chronicled.Random sampling was not used because theresearcher was not attempting to generalize the find-ings of the study to a broad population but to capturethe specific activities within a particular contextunder study.

The naturalistic research process, as explained byErlandson et al. (1993), is an interaction among fourphases. In the first phase, orientation and overview,information was gathered about the district. Thisincluded state test scores, demographics, economic fac-tors, introductory talks with the superintendent, andother information from open records. The initial orien-tation provided information that led to decisions con-cerning choice of respondents, follow-up informationneeded, and research questions.

www.asq.org 11



The next phase was focused exploration. This wasconducted both on and off site. The purposive samplingof 10 people, including the superintendent, two princi-pals, one teacher, two board trustees, and four director-level individuals, were interviewed. Time was also spentobserving the community, school, and administrativeoffices. Each interview was semistructured around a setof predetermined questions. The questions were:

• What were the goals of the district at the outset of theimplementation of quality practices and what werethe anticipated and unanticipated results?

• What approach did Brazosport ISD take in imple-menting quality practices?

• What deployment strategies did Brazosport ISD usein implementing quality practices?

• What approach and deployment strategies were usedin applying for the Texas Quality Award?

• What recommendations does the district have forother districts with respect to preparing and applyingfor the Texas Quality Award?

• How were the Texas Quality Award examiners’ reportand site visit used to continue the quality improve-ment process?

As the interview progressed, additional questionswere derived from initial respondents’ interviews,allowing for clarification, triangulation, and memberchecking. A process of interviewing, analyzing, andidentifying new information continued until informa-tion became redundant or fell into categories that wereat odds with each other.

The coding phase (which is designed to organize thedata collected into categories and concepts) was per-formed during and after the interviews. Categories beganto emerge as responses began to overlap. Open codingidentified general categories of information. The cate-gories were: 1) impetus for change, 2) district issues,superintendent leadership, 3) management team, 4)instructional focus, 5) quality management philosophy,6) effective schools research, 7) data-based decisionmaking, 8) high expectations, 9) board support, 10)parent support, and 11) paradigm shifts. Axial coding setup relationships that produced conceptual categories.Six categories were identified in sequence: 1) causal

issues, 2) phenomenon, 3) context, 4) intervening con-ditions, 5) actions/interactions, and 6) consequences.

Selective coding produced the core theory thatdefined the central phenomenon as it pertains to theschool district under study. The result of the codingphase was the creation of a central theme or “storyline” that reveals and supports (but does not necessari-ly prove) the grounded theory.

The last phase of the methodology was the finalreport. Findings were organized, described, and ana-lyzed; conclusions were drawn; and recommendationswere developed.

THE BRAZOSPORT STORYBEGINSBrazosport, Texas, is located in southern BrazoriaCounty southeast of Houston and covers an areaapproximately 195 square miles along the Gulf ofMexico. It is home to the largest chemical complex anddeepwater port, with Dow Chemical as a major pres-ence employing some 6000 people. A study in contrast,Brazosport has areas of newer, upper-middle classhousing as well as small, cottage-like dwellings, sug-gesting poorer areas. It is out of this economic disparitythat the impetus for change in the district arose.

In 1991, Gerald Anderson had just been appointedsuperintendent for Brazosport. State test scores, justannounced, revealed great disparity in the success ofthe Brazosport district’s 18 schools. Several schools hadreceived letters from the Texas Education Agency warn-ing that if their test scores were not raised, they wouldbe rated as a “low performing school.” This affectednine of the 18 campuses. Twenty-five years earlier, priorto state assessments, Brazosport had the reputation ofbeing a “premier quality” school district. A wealthy dis-trict, it had the highest entry-level pay in the state. Thehigh salary drew many applicants to the district, allow-ing it to hire top-notch personnel.

The label given to the nine schools,accredited/warned, meant at least one subgroup of stu-dents scored lower than 25 percent on the TexasAssessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). If that subgroupdid not move above 25 percent by the next year, theschools would be subject to state review.

12 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ



The schools receiving this notification were thosethat had the most economically disadvantaged stu-dents, all in the southern part of the district. The staffmembers at those schools believed they were doing thebest work they could with their student population, andthere were many excuses for the lack of success. Theyclaimed that lack of support for education in the homeprevented those students from being successful.

The test scores at the district’s high schools alsoshowed great variation, which prompted a parent ques-tion at Anderson’s first board meeting. The northernpart of the district, including Lake Jackson, was thehigher socioeconomic community; Freeport, in thesouth, was the lowest. The parent asked, “Was there asuperior level of quality in educational resources,teaching staff, and practices that explained the differ-ences between the schools?” While the Brazosport edu-cational staff spoke of their belief that “all children canlearn,” they accepted as “fact” that children bring dif-ferent backgrounds and abilities to the classroom,which, in some cases, limit a student’s ability to learn.

When the incident at the board meeting appearedthe next day in the local newspaper, it was embarrass-ing and demeaning for the staff of the lower-perform-ing schools. The article suggested the Freeport staffactually agreed they were inferior to staff in the otherpart of the district. The implication of that suggestionmotivated Anderson and the board to action. As a per-formance-driven individual, Anderson had to admitthat even his expectations for those students in lowsocioeconomic situations were not the same as for oth-ers in more advantaged situations. He was determinedto find a way to change the mindset toward lowersocioeconomic students, his own as well as others, andto work toward equity and success for all in the deliveryof education at Brazosport ISD.

Changing the Approach toSchool ReformMorris (1996) points out that the dominant model forchange in education has been the rational model thatrelies on goals, a selected policy, program changes putin place, and the process set into motion. Feedback to

the process is achieved by monitoring the processthrough inspection and evaluation. Morris (1996, 428)goes on to note that the rational model has not provid-ed effective educational reform, and one preferred rea-son for that comes from institutional theory. “Schooldistricts are institutionalized organizations, compelledby an ambiguous technology to seek rewards andmeans of survival through conformation to expecta-tions in their environment about the behaviors appro-priate to school districts.”

In contrast, the TQM approach suggests breakingfrom this “institutionalized model” and viewing schoolsas systems. Senge (1990) points out that “business andother human endeavors are systems. They too are boundby invisible fabrics of interrelated actions, which oftentake years to fully play out their effects on each other.”This is certainly true in education where hundreds, if notthousands, of variables influence the educationalprocesses and ultimately the achievement of students.School reform and enhanced student achievement mustgo beyond simple direct cause and effect analysis andunderstand the interdependencies and relationships thatexist and influence the temporal performance of sys-tems, processes, and people functioning within a schooldistrict. Anderson recognized the limited impact tradi-tional “institutionalized” approaches to educationalreform would have and was open to the quality manage-ment experiences that many of his board members hadexperienced as Dow Chemical employees.

TQM IS INTRODUCED IN BRAZOSPORTAnderson was invited by several board members toattend quality management training. He attended acourse given by Deming himself. As he listened, hebegan to look at school districts as systems and howimprovement might be possible following the qualityphilosophy and using its tools.

Parallel events occurred that reinforced theBrazosport quality start-up. The district used ServiceMaster Corporation to provide custodial services. Oneof its employees began quality training of districtadministrative personnel to effect improvement in the

www.asq.org 13



support areas of the district, primarily in the financialarea. This concurrent involvement with quality man-agement accelerated the interest of the Brazosportmanagement team.

The next step in the process was to institute trainingfor the central office staff and all the principals.Anderson worked with Dow to get the resources requiredto bring about this training. Many people in this grouphad previously studied the effective school research ofLarry Lezotte (Lezotte 1992) and recognized the correla-tions between Deming’s and Lezotte’s work. Trainingcontinued, and soon assistant principals and leadteachers were also educated in the quality philosophy.

School reform and enhanced student achievementmust go beyond simple direct cause and effect

analysis and understand the interdependencies andrelationships that exist and influence the temporal

performance of systems, processes, and people functioning within a school district.

It is important to note that the support for qualitymanagement came from all players in the district.Anderson was zealous, several members of his adminis-trative staff were committed, and the board was encour-aging the direction. It is uncommon for such a strongalliance of ideas to come together in support of a majorphilosophical, cultural, and managerial change. Whilethe widespread support for quality management fromthe top might have implied an easy conversion to quali-ty, it was, in fact, not a simple matter to convince every-body of its value. The district took a more gradual, com-mon-sense, and pragmatic approach. After covering thequality philosophy, they began with things such asmeeting skills. They introduced agendas for their meet-ings and constructed them to produce results, not mere-ly to cover agenda items. The practicality of thisapproach had an immediate impact in showing the effi-ciency that meetings could have. Consensus buildingthrough the use of multivoting was introduced. Affinitydiagrams came next as a means for understanding anddeconstructing big, unapproachable issues into compo-nents that could be worked on. Impact analysis, Paretocharts, and matrix diagrams followed. Management

and staff began to see that processes could be improvedthrough the practical application of these tools. Theintroduction to quality occurred through a process ofapplied learning rather than by an edict sent by man-agement. With the introduction of an effective tool,principals could immediately apply the same tool backon their campuses with equally effective results. Therecognition of professional development and participa-tory management as part of the criteria for effectivequality management drove this effort.

An important step Anderson took with his board wasto create a vision for the district. The vision forBrazosport was to be an exemplary school district by2000. The word “exemplary” has two meanings in thisvision. The first is a classification given to school dis-tricts by the state of Texas when they achieve the highestlevel in their test scores. The vision, however, goesbeyond the official accountability to touch every aspectof Brazosport ISD operations as well. Anderson called it“his missionary zeal,” but it was a vision that he heldon to and successfully instilled into the hearts andminds of his staff. Each person interviewed touched onAnderson’s vision and how it made a difference in trans-forming the district. The vision was consistently articu-lated by everyone in the organization, and it mirrored aprincipal tenet referred to by Deming as “constancy ofpurpose.” The district’s persistent focus on this organi-zational vision led staff members to make decisions andact in ways that helped them reach their goals.

Instructional FocusThe state accountability in Texas has been an extrinsicmotivator by providing an inducement to work towardbetter scores and higher ratings. What began as anextrinsic motivation later became intrinsic, but in 1991poor test scores in Brazosport ISD had triggered con-cern. Anderson turned to his director of instruction,Patricia Davenport, to research teacher performance inthe low-rated schools. She chose to focus on VelascoElementary, because it had an excellent principal andstaff. With that foundation, what else made a differencein success? She also chose Velasco because it had ahigh population of economically disadvantaged stu-dents. After examining thousands of test results, it was

14 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ



found that the students in Velasco Elementary were themost unsuccessful subgroup.

The theory was that if certain teachers were identi-fied as having success with typically low-performingstudents, they would be able to share their most effectiveteaching strategies that lead to success. In the data-richenvironment of the TAAS results, Davenport disaggre-gated data on all teachers in this one elementary schoolin the summer of 1992. In those data, she discovered ateacher whose third-graders, all economically disadvan-taged, had a 95 percent mastery of their subjects. Thisclass stood out from all others.

As Davenport further investigated to identify whatdifferentiated this class, she discovered a teachingstrategy being used by that teacher. This strategy,called the eight-step instructional process, is a com-mon-sense approach that closely resembles the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) model used by Deming. In thiscase the strategy encompassed: 1) data disaggregation(what are the targets to master for testing, 2) develop-ing timelines for the teaching process, 3) instructionalfocus, 4) assessment, 5) tutorials, 6) enrichment, 7) maintenance of skills and knowledge, and 8) moni-toring continued improvement.

THE EIGHT-STEP PROCESS ISPILOTEDIn the first year of the pilot at Velasco Elementary,teachers were trained and the eight-step process wasdeployed to all grade levels. In the spring of the firstyear, Velasco received a “Significant Gains” awardgiven by the Texas Education Agency. The school didnot make the “Recognized” category of the TAASresults, although it came close. The instructionalmodel was piloted again in the second year with thephilosophy to “go slow to go fast.” It was importantthat data be gathered to determine if this solution wasthe right one.

At the end of the second year, Velasco received its“Recognized” rating, the first school with its demo-graphics in Brazosport to do so. Two years of successconvinced the management team that the processoffered a sound solution and it should be instituted

elsewhere in the district. Lanier, a fifth- and sixth-gradeschool; Freeport Intermediate; and Brazosport HighSchool were the next schools to use the eight-stepprocess supported by the overall quality framework. Itwas significant to discover that the same instructionalprocess undergirded by the quality principles worked atdifferent grade levels. After the third year, Brazosportbecame the largest recognized district in the state, pri-marily because of the high scores of the economicallydisadvantaged population. Table 1 shows the test scoresof the economically disadvantaged population for the1992-1993, 1993-1994, and 1994-1995 school years.

Based on these dramatic results, Brazosport ISD’squality improvement framework, including the eight-step instructional method, was deployed to all campusesthroughout the district. Results have continued toimprove as systems have been aligned and as the qualityprinciples and improved teaching and learning process-es have taken hold throughout the district. Figures 1-3illustrate the dramatic improvement in student achieve-ment resulting from the district’s quality journey. Thescores reflect student performance on the TAAS testadministered annually in reading, math, and writing.

The focus on improving the core educationalprocess of instruction was working in schools that hadlarge populations of at-risk students. At other schoolsin the district, economically disadvantaged studentsrepresented only a small percentage of the population.Their scores on the state tests did not affect overallschool rating to the same degree. This did not mean,however, that those students were any more successful

www.asq.org 15

Table 1 Percentage of Brazosport ISD studentspassing TAAS tests in pilot campuses.

1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995

Velasco Elementary 35.50% 72.20% 84.60%(eco disadvantaged)

Velasco Elementary 37.00% 69.50% 83.80%(all students)

Freeport Intermediate 22.00% 49.00% 46.50%(eco disadvantaged)

Freeport Intermediate 36.60% 55.90% 55.00%(all students) ©

2002

, ASQ



in the better-rated schools. To the contrary, disadvan-taged students were not being focused on in thoseschools because they were not impacting the overallaccountability measure.

By now, the zeal to help every student be successfulhad spread. All principals in the district were trained in

the eight-step process and encouraged to institute pro-grams for their low-performing students. Anderson toldthe school principals that he held them accountable forall their students regardless of whether the state did.Staff at all Brazosport schools were expected to act as ifthey truly believed that all students were going to

16 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ

African American

Economically disadvantaged

All studentsHispanic

White

% S

core

79

76

61

57

5652

49

57

59

73

81

86

78

64

57

71

79

80

88

93979490

83

98969492 91

93949698

9998979693

65

5855

54

School Year

91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 2 Brazosport ISD TAAS math results.

©20

02, A

SQ

% S

core

School Year

African American

Economically disadvantaged

91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00

50

60

70

80

90

100

All students Hispanic

White

8284

90

83

71

68

9395

91

84

81

79

98 98 98 98

97

94

95

90

91

9693

92

95

89888786

76

74

7272

68

61

56

70

64

60

57

Figure 1 Brazosport ISD TAAS reading results.

©20

02, A

SQ



achieve success and to make sure their behavior con-veyed this message. If they were not convinced of this,they were asked to suspend any negative views orexcuse making. Brazosport leadership was convincedthat if all teachers acted as if they believed all kidscould learn and systems were put into place to supportthis, then student achievement could be improved.

There was resistance to using a prescribed instruc-tional process, but it actually proved to empower teach-ers rather than hold them back. The process is a frame-work within which teachers can adapt their own teach-ing style and make important decisions regarding theirclasses. This benchmark process was adopted andenhanced by the district as the instructional strategyaround which the district would align resources, staffdevelopment, and support services. The following out-lines in detail Brazosport ISD’s eight-step process.

• Step 1. Data are provided to principals by the cen-tral office. Principals distribute the data to teacherswho analyze the data by grade level and subjectarea. Using state assessment data, test scores arearranged from lowest to highest to identify instruc-tional groups and weak and strong objective areas.Wrong answers are used to improve instruction andhelp develop strategies.

• Step 2. Teachers are given time to meet by gradelevel and subject area to develop a campus timelinethat encompasses all objective areas. The purpose isnot the order of objectives but the length of instruc-tional time needed. Time allocations are determinedbased on the needs of the student groups and theweight of the objective.

• Step 3. Using the timeline, an “instructionalfocus” sheet stating the objective, target areas,instructional dates, and assessment date is dissemi-nated by teachers. The teachers are encouraged tofollow the schedule as closely as possible.Adjustments are made after the January mockassessment. The entire school works on the sametarget. It is listed on the board and announced everymorning. Even nonacademic teachers are expectedto work the targeted objective into their instruction.

• Step 4. After the instructional focus has beentaught, an assessment is administered to identifymastery/nonmastery students. The assessments aregiven at the end of each target in math, every threeweeks in reading, and every two weeks in writing.These are teacher graded, usually ranging from 4to 10 questions in length. The assessment is record-ed in a binder for student and teacher evaluation

www.asq.org 17

African American

Economically disadvantagedAll students

Hispanic

White

80

87

84

72

68

61

69

72

77

84

9092

87

807876

84

85

92

9698 98 98

9795 95

9493

9798

95

89929396

71

60

5957

School Year

91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00

50

60

70

80

90

100

% S

core

Figure 3 Brazosport ISD TAAS writing results.

©20

02, A

SQ



conferences. The central office also budgets for the purchase of assessments, tutorial, and enrich-ment materials.

• Step 5. For those yet to master the objective, thistime is spent for tutorials and reteaching the non-mastered target area. This is scheduled for 90 minutes a week.

• Step 6. Team time is scheduled for the studentswho mastered the objective to have target-relatedenrichment.

• Step 7. Maintenance and ongoing reteaching iscontinuous until testing time. Brazosport considersthis the most important step. It is not accomplishedwith worksheets, but with creative teaching strategies.

• Step 8. The whole instructional process is monitoreddaily by the instructional team from the central officein addition to the building principal. They see that thecritical success factors are in place. Those factorsinclude teacher behaviors that convey high expecta-tions, a safe and orderly climate conducive to teach-ing and learning, teamwork and commitment, andongoing measurement that provides good data fordecision-making. They also provide the role model ofbeing strong instructional leaders. By focusing ondata gathering, analysis, and student and teacher performance, they are conforming to TQM criteria.

Gaynor (1998) distinguishes between the systemdynamics operating in effective and ineffective schools.

He notes: “An ineffective school is characterized mosteffectively by its multiplier effects on children’s learn-ing. The learning rate of initially high achievers tendsto be exponentially reinforced upward in comparisonwith other children. Whereas multiplier effects arehelpful and desirable for high-achieving children, theyare undesirable for lower-achieving children.” (p. 121)

The dynamics of this reinforcing system are illus-trated in Figure 4 (Gaynor 1998, 122).

The key point is that the multipliers of this rein-forcing system are based on socially constructedteacher expectations that academic performance forall students is primarily a function of “intensity andappropriateness of instruction” based on a “student’smotivation to learn” and a “student’s rate of learning.”This is a common approach to “improve performance”by many educators.

Contrast this with the multiplier dynamics operat-ing in an effective school. Figure 5 illustrates thesedynamics (Gaynor 1998, 123). “The key differencebetween the multiplier dynamics operating in an inef-fective and an effective school is that in the effectiveschool, teacher expectations are based on commonlyshared and stable professional standards for studentacademic performance where…teacher expectationsfor student academic performance are not permittedto fall below professional grade-level minimal expec-tations, and the intensity and appropriateness ofinstruction is augmented whenever student academic

18 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

(+)

(+)

Teacher expectationsfor student learning

Intensity andappropriateness

of instruction

Student motivationto learn

Student rateof learning

Academicperformance

Figure 4 The multiplier dynamics of schooling thatare ineffective for low-achieving children.

©20

02, A

SQ

(+)

(-)

(-)

+

-

+

+-

+

+

+

+

Teacher expecationsfor student learning

Ratio of academic performanceto teacher expectations

for academic performance

Intensity andappropriateness

of instructionStudentmotivationto learnStudent

rate oflearning

Academicperformance

Professionalstandards for

student academicperformance

Figure 5 The negative feedback maintaining effectiveschooling for low-achieving children.

©20

02, A

SQ



performance is below grade-level standards. Thus,there is a stabilizing thermostat system put in placefor low-achieving children, a negative feedbackdynamic that, instead of reinforcing low achievement,seeks to counteract it.” (Gaynor 1998, 122)

Brazosport’s eight-step instructional process was the“thermostat system” that enabled the district to movefrom being an ineffective school district to a highlyeffective school district.

DEPLOYMENT AND QUALITYPRACTICESIn addition to the attention and emphasis thatBrazosport gave to the use of disaggregated data toensure teaching and learning processes were designedto meet individual learning needs, other processes weresignificantly redesigned and improved. Representativeof those were curriculum alignment, staff development,support services, and the instructional schedule. Eachof these was designed to leverage the resources of thedistrict in focusing on individual student learningneeds and teacher support required to meet thoseneeds. An example of the success of Brazosport ISD inthis area is illustrated by the dramatic improvement ofits instructional cost per student and administrationcost per student (see Figure 6). The district’s success isfurther evidenced by the high teacher retention rate.

The success at Brazosport is due largely to thestrong leadership of Gerald Anderson. Faced with thischallenge as he began his superintendency in 1991,Anderson proved to be the right person for the job. Herefers to this early period as his “point of transforma-tion.” What has made Anderson unique in his effortsis his ability to share his vision. He relishes hisresponsibility to share his philosophy, and he speakswith passion and urgency. Anderson says, “I am trulya missionary with zeal, because I think for the veryfirst time in my career, I am truthfully focused onwhat I think public schools have got to do.”

It would seem that, to work for Anderson, one has tocultivate the same vision. His staff describes him as atrue leader rather than a manager. Anderson believes,“You have to be able to motivate people. Not only doesthe superintendent have to preach those high expecta-tions and expect them, but you have to be able to con-vince people that it is the right thing to do and thatthey can do it.” According to one of Anderson’s princi-pals, “Dr. Anderson has a slogan. If you deliver for me,I will deliver for you.” This is interpreted to mean thatthere is a reciprocal agreement that the superintendentis committed to enabling an administrator to succeed.

It is obvious that Anderson had to have firsthandinvolvement in the district. One of his personal goalswas to visit a campus every day he was in the district.

He used those opportunities to revisit the vision for the district as well as discuss curriculum and

www.asq.org 19

Operational Results

Instructional cost per studentAdministrative cost per student

Instr

uctio

nal c

ost p

er s

tude

nt

Adm

inis

trativ

e co

st pe

r stu

dent

$3,500 $250

$200

$150

$100

$100

$0

$3,000

$2,500

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$01991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Figure 6 Change in instructional cost per student and administrative cost per student.

©20

02, A

SQ



instructional issues. He tried to get a sense of every-one’s satisfaction with the processes in place and heartheir concerns. Anderson described his campus visitsthis way: “I put myself on the firing line with thepeople out there making it happen. They need to beable to challenge the superintendent, take him totask. We’ve had some great debates occur in that peri-od about kids and my expectations, because I will notaccept any excuses that kids can’t learn. I mean, it’sjust unacceptable with me.”

It seems apparent that one cannot separate the suc-cess at Brazosport from the visionary and supportiveleadership that Anderson provided. It is a clear exampleof why strong leadership is a criterion of quality.

Management by fact is another TQM criterion. Alldecisions are based on supporting data. Nothing isdetermined by feelings or precedent. Decisions are alsocentered on how they support the instructional focus.While this may seem difficult to achieve, it is very effec-tive. When data are presented that support a decision,and those data show the focus on the students, theleadership is apt to respond positively. Education is ripewith data, particularly in the state of Texas.Information, such as the district’s results on TAAS, isreviewed thoroughly with district personnel, and thenshared with campuses and their staff in an effort toprovide appropriate responses. The responses may comein the form of redesigning processes and programs,curriculum, or instructional strategies for a specificstudent, a specific campus, or the district as a whole.

The data can also lead to decisions regarding set-ting improvement targets, encouraging breakthroughapproaches, and forecasting and identifying opportuni-ties for continuous improvement.

Brazosport ISD, guided by a clear mission andvision and community support, used disaggregateddata to identify individual student learning needs.School leadership and teachers then translated theseneeds into district, campus, and classroom goals andobjectives aligned to the vision and mission. Systemsand processes at the district, campus, and classroomlevels were evaluated and redesigned to accomplish theidentified goals and objectives. Teachers and adminis-trators were trained to ensure they had the requisiteskills and knowledge to effectively implement the

redesigned systems and processes. Process data werethen generated to align resources and to continuouslyimprove instructional strategies, teacher and adminis-trator training, and to improve support processes.Brazosport ISD worked as a system to transform itself soall children could learn and be successful.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOROTHER DISTRICTSThe story of one award-winning district was designedto provide an understanding of the circumstancesleading to and contributing to successful change.Certainly school districts with high percentages ofeconomically disadvantaged students will findBrazosport’s approach and deployment strategiesmodels for their own situation. Any educationalorganization can adapt and duplicate many of thequality approach and deployment strategies imple-mented by Brazosport ISD. By instituting a cycle ofplanning, analyzing, and continuously improvingprocesses, using the abundance of data available ineducation to inform decision-making, and identifyingareas of success within the district to serve as a modelfor best practices, improvement will occur. The resultswill be higher student success. It is not a fast or easytransformation, and districts looking for quick changeshould not attempt to follow this model. They musthave patience to collect and analyze data and a will-ingness to change their paradigms about instruction-al approach, time, and assessment. Support systemshave to be redesigned to align to the core educationalprocess. Districts need to be aware that they must con-tinuously measure their results and use the results todrive continuous improvement in their systems andprocesses. Change can no longer be instituted withoutbenchmarks established and data analyzed forinformed decision-making and instructional practicein the context of the whole district as a system.

Other essentials in Brazosport’s success were thequality of the leadership and the way in which thevision of the district was constantly articulated. A stronginstructional leader is necessary to help define theschool mission, manage curriculum and instruction,

20 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ



and promote school climate. This person should be aresource provider, model expected behavior, and buildthe capacity of the staff. Training in quality processesand tools is also vital. This training should encompassmanagement, board members, faculty, and staff, buttraining alone is not sufficient. The processes and toolsmust become institutionalized in the way the organiza-tion conducts business.

Brazosport attributes its success to four tenets:consistency, accountability, motivation, and expecta-tions. By taking a systemic approach, the district wasable to overcome the old habit of random acts ofimprovement. Key questions that were asked includ-ed: What is the vision for the school/district? How willthe students benefit if the vision is achieved? Whatare the planning processes that will guide the vision?What opportunities will there be for people to learn?What will be the monitoring processes? Will thevision make a positive difference?

The final recommendations may be the hardest fordistricts to follow. Decision-makers must be willing tomake those systemic changes that deviate from theconcept of traditional education if the data confirmthe need and they must have the discipline to stay thecourse. In the case of Brazosport, solutions to prob-lems caused significant systemic changes, includingscheduling learning opportunities to meet studentneeds and giving teachers increased autonomy tomake those changes. The ways in which educationdollars were spent needed to be aligned with creativesolutions. Many districts are reluctant to make thosechanges, but real and lasting solutions cannot alwaysbe found within the current paradigms of existingeducational systems. Morris (1996, 443) posits that“the idea is that if successful and widely accepted, asystems perspective that changes the mental models ofadministrators, reformers, and policy makers canmodify the cultural framework on which the institu-tionalized school district is constructed.” It appearsthat as a result of this study, a major determiner inincreasing excellence and equity in school and student performance was the willingness of schoolleaders to adopt new mental models that enabled andempowered school district personnel to follow a sys-temic and systematic change strategy based on quality

principles and to seek and institute solutions that wereoutside the bounds of the institutional cultural frame-work of “education as usual.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors of this article would like to acknowledge Dr. GeraldAnderson, Dr. Patricia Davenport, and other Brazosport ISD per-sonnel for their support and assistance in the conduct of the studyreported here.

REFERENCES

Arcaro, J. 1995. Quality in education: An implementation hand-book. Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.

Baldrige National Quality Program. 2001. Educational criteriafor performance excellence. Washington, D.C.: National Instituteof Standards and Technology.

Deming, W. E. 1992. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, Mass.:Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Deming, W. E. 1994. The new economics for industry, govern-ment , and educat ion. 2nd edi t ion. Cambridge, Mass. :Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dobyns, L., and C. Crawford-Mason. 1994. Thinking about qual-ity: Progress, wisdom, and the Deming philosophy. New York:Random House.

Erlandson, D., E. Harris, B. Skipper, and S. Allen. 1993. Doingnaturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, Calif.:Sage Publications, Inc.

Frazier, A. 1997. A roadmap for quality transformation in edu-cation. Boca Raton, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.

Gaynor, A. 1998. Analyzing problems in schools and school sys-tems: A theoretical approach. Mahwah, N.J.: L. ErlbaumAssociates.

Hall, J. 1998. Ethnography and evaluation. See URL www.learn-ing.ed.vt.edu/evalsummer/methnmain.htm .

Herman, J., and J. L. Herman. 1994. Education quality manage-ment: Effective schools through systematic change. Lancaster, Pa.:Technomic Publication Co.

Hord, S., and B. Monk. 1997. Total quality: A missing piece foreducational improvement. Issues about change. Austin, Texas:Southwest Educational Development Lab.

Lezotte, L. 1992. Creating the total quality effective school.Okemos, Mich.: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.

Marsh, J. 1995. Special report: Quality in education on themove. Quality Digest Magazine 15, no. 9: 26-32.

Morris, D. 1996. Institutionalization and the reform process: A systemdynamic perspective. Educational Policy 10, no. 4: 427-447.

www.asq.org 21



National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. Anation at risk: A report to the nation and the secretary of educa-tion. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Perkinson, H. 1995. The imperfect panacea: American faith ineducation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Scott, W. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks,Calif.: Sage.

Senge, P., N. Cambron-McCabe, T. Lucas, B. Smith, S. Dutton,and A. Kleiner. 2000. Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of thelearning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Spradley, J. 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt,Rinehart, & Winston.

Tribus, M. 1993. Why not education: Quality management ineducation. Journal for Quality and Participation 16, no. 1: 12-21.

Wilson, J. 1993. South Huntingdon schools: A decade of seekingexcellence through total quality in education. Journal for Qualityand Participation 16, no. 1: 62-66.

BIOGRAPHIES

Jacqueline Goldberg is a quality specialist for the North BrowardCounty (Florida) Hospital District. She previously served as a sen-ior consultant at TransUnion, LLC. She consults on qualityimprovement issues and facilitates quality teams in both educa-tion and business. She has been a school administrator, curricu-lum director, and consultant for both the New Jersey Departmentof Education and the Texas Education Agency at their Region IVEducation Service Center.

Goldberg received her doctorate in educational leadership fromTexas A&M University, emphasizing studies in total quality man-agement practices as they apply to education. She has alsoserved as an examiner for the Texas Quality Award and currentlyserves as an examiner for the Florida Sterling Award. She can bereached at [email protected] .

Bryan R. Cole is professor and head of the Department ofEducational Administration and Human Resource Development atTexas A&M University. Effective September 2000, Cole received aspecial appointment as assistant vice president for quality leader-ship. He has also served as associate dean of undergraduate stud-ies in the College of Education for 10 years and assistant dean forfive years. He has served as the director of the Summer Seminaron Academic Administration for 25 years. Cole’s professionalinterests include continuous quality improvement in educationalsystems, educational law, and higher education administration,and he is a frequent speaker and consultant on the implementationof continuous quality improvement in educational systems. He is a1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 examiner for the Malcolm BaldrigeNational Quality Award certified by the U.S. Department ofCommerce, and currently serves as a judge on the Panel of Judgesfor the Texas Quality Award, and is a board member of theQuality Texas Foundation.

Cole has served as chairman of the Baptist General Conventionof Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and was a mem-ber of the board for six years. He is a recipient of the Texas A&MUniversi ty Associat ion of Former Students Dis t inguishedAchievement Award in Teaching for 1979 and 1994. Colereceived his bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Military Academy atWest Point and his master’s degree and doctorate in educationaladministration (higher education) from Texas A&M University. Hecan be reached at [email protected] .

22 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ


Documents

Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity