Quality Mauritus

Principals Perceptions of the Use of Total QualityManagement Concepts for School Improvement inMauritius: Leading or Misleading?Jean Claude Ah-Teck, Deakin University, Victoria, AustraliaKaren Starr, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia

Abstract: As a small island country, Mauritius is relying on its human capital and innovative hi-techindustry to ensure future economic viability in the global market. As such, Mauritian education author-ities are seeking ways to raise educational standards. One idea being canvassed is that Total QualityManagement (TQM) could provide the framework for Mauritian school leaders to deliver imperativesfor change and improvement and to achieve the aim of world-class quality education. This paperreports the findings of a research into Mauritian principals current practices in line with TQM tenetsand their perceptions about the usefulness or otherwise of ideas implicit in TQM. The findings indicatethat whilst principals agree with current progressive notions and thinking compatible with the TQMphilosophy, they have not fully translated them into their practice. The paper identifies challenges andopportunities worthy of discussion for school improvement in twenty-first century Mauritius with itshigh-tech, world-class ambitions.

Keywords: Quality Education, Total Quality Management (TQM), Educational Leadership, SchoolImprovement, Mauritius Education System

Introduction

THE INCREASINGECONOMIC needs of Mauritius to position itself as an intelli-gent nation state in the front line of global progress and innovation, increasing pres-sures to improve the quality of schools, and the shortcomings of the various educa-tional reforms of the past two decades have prompted education officials to focus

on school leadership to deliver significant change. One idea is that Total Quality Management(TQM), a leadership and management philosophy used extensively by business enterprisesto compete in a globalised world (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003), could provide the schoolleadership framework to achieve the governments often-stated aim of achieving world-class quality education (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2006; Ministry ofEducation and Scientific Research, 2003). Whether this assumption is correct is the focusof this paper. It reports the findings of research into Mauritian principals receptivity to themain ideas inherent in TQM.

TQM embraces tenets that are consistent with much current literature about school im-provement (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006; Hargreaves and Fink, 2003). Extant research suggeststhat TQM has been used to improve the quality of schools in a holistic manner and on acontinuing basis (e.g. Bonsting, 2001; Blankstein, 2004). However, no such research existsin the Mauritian context.

The International Journal of LearningVolume 18, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494 Common Ground, Jean Claude Ah-Teck, Karen Starr, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]

Total Quality Management in Education

The philosophy of TQM was developed by Deming and Juran (Deming, 2000; Juran, 1999).Although TQM was originally intended for industry, Deming argued that his managementprinciples could equally be applied to the service sector, including education. TQMs strongestemphases are leadership commitment and support of formal leaders in the quest for quality,constancy of purpose, quality consciousness, empowerment, continuous improvement anda systemic approach as a way of organisational life (Mukhopadhyay, 2005). Such ideas arereinforced by Leithwood et al. (2006) who contend that school leadership should be basedon flexibility, persistent optimism, motivating attitudes and dispositions, commitment andan understanding of ones actions on the daily lives of others.

De Jager and Nieuwenhuis (2005, p 254) describe the key principles of TQM in educationas leadership, scientific methods and tools and problem-solving through teamwork. Thesethree specific features are linked to form an integrated system that contributes to the organ-isational climate, [professional learning] and provision of meaningful data with [stakeholder]service at the centre of it all (see Figure 1). Another important TQM tenet commonly referredto in the literature is a focus on systemic thinking about the school (e.g. Bonstingl, 2001;Deming, 2000; Mukhopadhyay, 2005).

Figure 1: Key Principles of TQM in Education (De Jager and Nieuwenhuis, 2005, p 254,Adapted)

Distributed Leadership

TQM endorses distributed, shared or collective notions of leadership (Gronn, 2000; Mukho-padhyay, 2005), including an emphasis on teacher leadership (Starr and Oakley, 2008), re-cognising the importance of collaboration, collective decision-making and teamwork to enablestakeholders to contribute to the processes of visioning and implementing rather than simply

2

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

accepting the formal leaders personal vision (Bush and Glover, 2003). In particular, prin-cipals, as formal leaders, have a crucial role in creating genuinely shared leadership partner-ships with teachers, especially in assisting them to learn and grow professionally (Starr andOakley, 2008), empowering them to effect decisions autonomously and recognising themas leaders in their spheres of influence (Gronn, 2000). It is not difficult to see the basis ofthe current appeal to the idea of distributed leadership as a form of participatory democracy(Leithwood et al., 2007).

Focus on the Stakeholder

A key TQM principle is the focus on stakeholders satisfaction through meeting and exceedingtheir needs and expectations (Sallis, 2002), based on the principle that the stakeholder is thesupreme judge of the educational quality (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003). In the TQMscenario, therefore, the organisational structure and decision-making are inverted so thatprincipals lead from the bottom up. Accordingly, educational programmes are designed byteachers and school leaders based on students needs and expectations. This is a fundamentalparadigm shift in the culture of educational leadership, with leaders expected to be less pre-scriptive and more supportive collaborators with other stakeholders.

TQM also entails a focus on external networks, emphasising cooperation rather thancompetition (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003). Cooperation with parents, other schools, uni-versities, future employers and the community enhances satisfaction and loyalty. In this way,an effective chain of stakeholders is built through participation in decisions regarding pro-gramme design and delivery improvements.

Commitment to Continuous Improvement

TQM espouses continuous improvement of knowledge, processes, products and services(Bonstingl, 2001; Oakland, 2003; Sallis, 2002). Schools that are quality orientated engagein continuous innovation and change that better meet their stakeholders expectations andthat support learning for students as well as teachers and leaders (Gandolfi, 2006). Achievingquality is a never-ending journey of improvement of people and processes (Bonstingl, 2001;Sallis, 2002; Mukhopadhyay, 2005), realised through multi-functional teams, stakeholderfeedback, staff empowerment, and data collection methods and measurement (rather thaninspection regimes) to build quality into the system and processes (Deming, 2000). Ultimately,the focus of continuous quality improvement is on the optimisation of both individual andcollective potential within an organisation.

Leadership Based on Data

TQM aims at proactive and responsive (as opposed to reactive) decision-making based ondata and evidence (Deming, 2000; Mukhopadhyay, 2005). Importantly, it suggests developinga data culture in the school which facilitates participative decision-making, to providetransparent leadership and more reliable, locally-derived evidence to enable determinationsand problem solving (Deming, 2000).

3

JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR

Professional Learning

Implementing TQM in schools calls for a high degree of delegation and decentralisation re-quiring that all employees receive relevant professional learning opportunities. Professionaldevelopment should be ongoing and respond to practitioners needs in order to explore neweducational thinking and enhance group effectiveness (Wilms, 2003). To be true to Demingsphilosophy, professional learning should also serve to create and promote a working envir-onment in which collaboration and involvement of teachers from different subject disciplinesand departments prevail (Berry, 1997).

Teamwork

Deming (2000) is adamant of the need to break down barriers between departments and ab-olish competition within the organisation. Thus, to build an effective TQM culture, teamworkand cooperation should be extended throughout the school (Sallis, 2002). One of the mostprominent features of TQM concerns the restructuring of the school into semi-autonomousor self-directed work teams, that communicate laterally while remaining connected to internaland external stakeholders (Lycke, 2003; West-Burnham, 2004).

Focus on the System

TQM is based on systems thinking an analysis of the interrelationships and interdependenceof constituent units and sub-systems and interpretation of these interactions in predictingwhat may happen in other parts of the system if certain changes are made elsewhere (Muk-hopadhyay, 2005). In essence, systems thinking ensures that the intelligent school is aliving organism a dynamic system that is more than just the sum of its parts (Groundwater-Smith, 2005, p 2).

Cultural Change

The TQM paradigm would represent a cultural change and fundamental shift in thinkingabout leadership in many, if not most, Mauritian schools which adhere to traditional, hier-archical conceptions of leadership (Gronn, 2003; Spillane, 2006). To be useful in education,school leaders must work with stakeholders to understand clearly those TQM elements thatare most pertinent for quality improvement and customise them to suit their contexts.

Research Methodology

A mixed methods research was employed to investigate principals views about school andsystemic improvement and the usefulness or otherwise of TQM in raising quality (includingequity) in Mauritian schools. This paper reports specifically on qualitative aspects of thestudy related to data collected by means of semi-structured interviews conducted with apurposive sample of six principals. (The quantitative data collected through a countrywidequestionnaire survey of all primary and secondary school principals will be the focus of aforthcoming research article.) The research questions were:

4


Do principals perceive their current leadership practices for school improvement bearresemblance with the TQM philosophy?

Do principals perceive that TQM-like tenets could be usefully adapted for school im-provement purposes?

Six schools were involved (two primary and four secondary schools), representing diversityof sector, level of schooling, gender, location and socio-economic status of the enrollingfamilies. Three schools were in urban areas and three were rural, three were state and threeCatholic schools (also controlled by Mauritian education authorities). Two principals werefemales, four were males. One school had children predominantly from professional families,another with a large population from working class families, and the others with studentsfrom mixed backgrounds. Difference between schools was seen as valuable for the researchin exploring TQMs relevance and applicability in divergent contexts.

The qualitative phase of the research was an exercise in grounded theory building (Glaserand Strauss, 1967). In this approach, theory emerges from the data gathered through an in-ductive process whereby emerging research insights are analysed and continually tested,producing further evidence and/or new theoretical insights (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). Theiterative processes of developing claims and interpretations is responsive to research situationsand the multiple layers of meaning produced by the people in them (Gray, 2009). Opencoding identified several categories of causal conditions, phenomena, strategies, and con-sequences. Axial coding identified and classified the data and enabled connections betweencategories to be made, while selective coding refined the integration of categories.

Issues of reliability and validity were addressed using Guba and Lincolns (1989) set ofstandards for establishing the quality or trustworthiness of data in qualitative research. Theparticipating principals were allowed to listen to their audio-recorded responses and readthe observational field notes taken immediately after the interview, and were asked if thesereflected what they intended them to mean. Transcripts or analysed results were taken backto the interview participants so that they could themselves legitimately judge the credibilityof the results. Transferability was enhanced by providing a detailed description of the re-search context and the assumptions that were central to the research. Another technique wasthe triangulation or multiple methods of data collection and analysis, which strengthensdependability as well as credibility (Merriam, 1998).

Findings, Discussion and Implications for School Leadership

The data analyses and findings from the interviews with the Mauritian principals are categor-ised under the TQM principles identified in the literature review, which are used as the or-ganising framework to highlight themes. Because of the interdependence of the TQM principleof cultural change with the other principles, the data are not analysed separately with ref-erence to cultural change, but are captured and subsumed within the other principles/headings.

Distributed Leadership

A major finding is that while the Mauritian principals were comfortable with the currentnotion of distributed leadership and voiced compellingly that they put it into practice, inmany instances, their comments revealed contradictions to a genuinely collaborative approach.These principals did not seem to trust a large array of stakeholders within the school com-

5


munity. Instead, they placed more professional responsibility in the hands of those whowould buy into their vision and believe in and support their own ways of seeing and doingthings. It was a vision imposed from above and there was no readiness to move forwardtowards change that involved everyones contribution. For example, principals stated:

Although I would describe my leadership style as democratic, sometimes I still needto impose. These policy guidelines enable me to exercise control. The guidelinesalso ensure that everybody knows exactly what is expected of them. (PA)

You cannot be on top of them (teachers). You have to be in the middle of them andshare your vision, and make it accepted in a democratic way so that they feel they haveownership of it and they will therefore be more inclined to be committed to that vision.(PA)

We empower all staff to make decisions and even hold them accountable for exercisinginitiatives aligned with the schools common mission or educational purpose. Theidea is to give staff a sense that they have a real say in things that matter to them andthat affect them most. (PF)

These comments suggest an underlying autocratic leadership style which served principalsown interests.

Moreover, the responses of Mauritian principals infer that the formal school leader shouldremain responsible and accountable and retain the right of veto in the strategic direction ofthe school. The respondents therefore had an erroneous understanding which suggested thatthat those in charge of the system are the only ones who could change that system by theirpresence and commitment. It has to be noted that formal leaders are not the only agents ofchange (Fullan, 2007). If leadership were truly distributed and decisions were made demo-cratically, then everyone within the team would be a powerful agent of change. By and large,principals agreed to the importance of promoting collaborative approaches and ensuring thatdecision-making involved those most affected by outcomes, yet they remained evasive whenprompted into elaborating the sorts of decisions involving stakeholders.

In the conservative Mauritian context where school leadership is predominantly equatedwith the actions of principals who are the sole leaders and managers of schools, the educa-tional system expects and demands that they are in control. Principals are squeezed betweencurrent progressive notions of school leadership and very autocratic government demandsfor certain policies to be implemented, with principals being responsible for this (despitegovernment ideas about how school improvement might occur). They might wish to pursuedistributed leadership styles but change is always painstakingly slow and government demandsimmediate (Hargreaves and Fink, 2003; Starr, in press). Thus they are left with no optionthan to use their power and formal position to demand conformity from staff in autocraticways.

The distributed leadership perspective is borne out by much current literature in educationalleadership (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006; Silins and Mulford, 2002). Moreover, [s]ustainableleadership is distributed leadership as an accurate description of how much leadership isalready exercised, and also as an ambition for what leadership can, more deliberately, become(Hargreaves, 2007, p 225). Surely, distributed leadership is an idea whose time has come

6


(Gronn, 2000, p 333). Mauritian education authorities recognise the need for change throughits espoused support for TQM-like tenets, although demands for improvement appear tooverlook this aspect of the philosophy.

Focus on the Stakeholder

In this Mauritian study, principals perceived that their schools were not only focusing onstudents and tapping into the resources of their staff in their educative mission, but were alsodeveloping links with parents, other educational institutions, businesses and the community.However, in practice principals main focus was to secure stakeholders attention throughmarketing and public relation strategies, not through collaboration in the schools operations,decision-making or governance. There were several instances of parents, for example, beingactively dissuaded from participating in decision-making. For example:

We believe that we have a better perspective than parents of what is necessary for theschool and helpful for their children. So we cant allow parents to intrude too much inimportant decision-making in which they might not have the competence, anyway.(PC)

Some parents use their influence to control what goes on here when they volunteer, andwhat decisions are made in school committees. They just violate their boundaries. Doyou think I can let this happen? (PF)

In general, it can be concluded that in all the sampled schools, parents and students as primarystakeholders have less professional say than educators, consistent with provider capture,a widespread phenomenon coined by Gannicott (1997) whereby schooling is controlled bythe people who produce it rather than by those who consume it. It is easy for the needsand demands of central education authorities to take precedence in policy making and regu-latory activities which result in their all encompassing bureaucratic arms controlling thework of schools and in turn keeping stakeholders at arms length to abide by the decisionsof school leaders whose vested power allows them to act as intermediaries in implementingdecisions from above.

Yet, there is substantial evidence from the literature that supports the building of relation-ships with all stakeholders inside and outside the school, with school leaders viewingthemselves as collaborators of one another and of teachers, students, parents, businesses andcommunity members (Bonstingl, 2001). This is perceived as essential for ensuring sustainableimprovements in quality performance (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003), and developing alearning organisation (Gandolfi, 2006; Senge et al., 2000) in which fear by gratuitous bur-eaucratic rules and regulations is driven out (Deming, 2000) in favour of genuine distributedleadership resulting in empowerment of people at all levels.

Commitment to Continuous Improvement

Like the rest of the world, schools in Mauritius are changing significantly. School improve-ment, education reform and similar themes of renewal have been an integral part of Mauritianeducation for the past twenty years and beyond if we consider earlier waves of reform

7


(Ministry of Education and Scientific Research, 1998, 2001a, 2001b, 2003). Learning howto successfully implement changes in the current educational and economic contexts is par-ticularly important, especially at a time of a huge variety of initiatives and innovations andwhen there are competing government reforms being promoted in schools concurrently.

The empirical evidence in this study points out, however, that school leaders have amounting task in managing the level of resistance to change and in aligning teachers worktowards their vision and government objectives (see also Starr, in press). Some indicativecomments included:

Any school improvement plan should include goals that are aligned with the ministrysinitiatives. We dont have much choice, do we? Also, parents, students and otherstakeholders have conflicting interests and demands, and we have to try to pleaseeverybody. (PD)

Every five years or so, a new government is elected, bringing a new educational reformwhich contradicts and substitutes an earlier reform by the old regime. A new government[thinks it] has to be seen to be doing things differently but they dont even consultus. Here we go, abiding by orders from above and starting all over again. The situationis really chaotic. (PF)

The study reveals that the heavy hand of government often imposes educational reformson schools, with school leaders acting as the gate-keepers of such major change agendas(see also Starr, in press). Principals, however, are not partners in policy decisions. The failureor inability of Mauritian principals to fully commit themselves to the TQM philosophy andto achieve quality and genuine school improvement could largely be explained by autocraticgovernment demands for policy implementation, with principals positioning themselves asmiddle managers and abiding by orders received from the upper echelons even though thegovernment itself espouses distributed leadership and a TQM approach. Principals feel theyhave to be authoritarian and coercive to some extent because often policy change is unpop-ular and major change is difficult to lead (Starr, in press). This is exacerbated by the shiftingpolitical interventions as the Mauritian government changes, with each new regime bringingits own assortment of innovations which are often in conflict with earlier ones. As Hargreavesand Fink (2003, p 693) argue, [e]ducational change is rarely easy to make, always hard tojustify and almost impossible to sustain. It is perhaps no wonder that the structure ofschooling and practice of teaching in Mauritius have remained remarkably stable over decadesamidst radical but ephemeral reforms (see also Evans, 2001). However, if TQM demandscertain compliant behaviours at the micro level, then these should also occur at the nationallevel. The government needs to make overtures to trust schools and their principals.

Leadership Based on Data

The use of data, including benchmarking, to measure work quality and refinement was notan area of strength of the principals. The principals responses are in agreement with theobservations made by Evans (2007) that measurement, analysis, and knowledge managementefforts are often the least advanced of the quality dimensions within organisations. Principalslack of time and lack of confidence due to their inadequate knowledge of statistics were ad-

8


ditional barriers to the use of tools and techniques for systematic data collection and analysis,again corroborating with other research findings (e.g. Schildkamp and Kuiper, 2010; Shenand Cooley, 2008). Principals commented:

I think there is nothing wrong with using questionnaire surveys and other formal meansto gather information about peoples needs or complaints. The problem is that it takestime and we have no time for that. We are also not trained to collect data systemat-ically, let alone to analyse them statistically. (PE)

My staff will have to be trained to construct questionnaires to collect data and they willneed to have some knowledge of statistics to be able to analyse the information. Butnot everyone is statistically minded and I guess that it will be hard for all people tothink in statistical terms. The [other] problem is that it will take so much time to carryout systematic data collection. (PC)

Thus, decision-making based on facts and evidence, as a requirement of TQM, was nottotally substantiated in the Mauritian study. Yet there was strong agreement among theprincipals as to potential advantages that would accrue from data usage for decision-makingpurposes. Principals also believed, however, that to place an overwhelming importance ondata in making educational choices and decisions is to potentially deny the importance ofpeople, who are at the heart of the school improvement process, and their professional intuitionand judgement.

Hence, there is an urgency to determine the current level of leaders [and teachers] ex-pertise in accessing, generating, managing, interpreting, and acting on data (Knapp et al.2006, p 39). Care will have to be taken that unintended or undesirable effects do not occuras a result of an overemphasis on data-driven decision-making for example, reduced mo-tivation among teachers due to extra workload or narrow focus on the tested curriculum(Schildkamp and Teddlie, 2008).

Professional Learning

Professional learning, together with distributed leadership, are the areas of leadership practicein the sampled schools that were found to be the least aligned with the TQM paradigm. Ac-cording to principals, professional learning opportunities were made available to staff in theform of staff development programs for heads of department and heads of year, which theyclaimed they were conducting themselves. One principal explained:

Staff development is effected via staff meetings and general workshops Fromtime to time, we organise whole-staff sessions and in-service sessions for heads of de-partment and heads of section when either myself or my assistant would take the leadto address issues as wide-ranging as classroom management, discipline, assessment,teaching of mixed-ability classes. (PD)

However, the true purpose of these in-service training sessions seemed to be ad hoc orient-ation sessions to disseminate school protocols and policies and, therefore, cannot be calledprofessional learning as such. Effective professional learning should instead be purposefully

9


directed and focused on curriculum or pedagogy or both (Garet et al., 2001), and concernedwith creating and sustaining a school climate that empowers teachers to be the architects oftheir own professional development and to foster their leadership capacity (Cherubini, 2007).In other words, situational demands should determine professional development, and notnecessarily generic needs as the principals in this study suggested. A decline in resistanceto participation in professional development by educators was noted when the learninghappened in classroom contexts (see also Gallucci, 2008). Hence, in general, professionallearning does not have to stem from an expert, but rather requires collaborative efforts in-volving teachers with a genuine desire to improve their practice by engaging with colleaguesand sharing ideas with knowledgeable others (Wayman, Jimerson and Cho, 2011).

Principals reported that teachers in their schools received support through in-service de-partmental workshops supervised by heads of department with the aim of continually improv-ing their knowledge and skills. However, learning which is compartmentalised into artificialsubject fields is contrary to Demings systemic view of an organisation where quality is en-hanced by demolishing barriers between traditional departments and promoting cooperativeways of working. Improvement of student learning is an interdisciplinary task (Berry, 1997).The interdependencies of real life which involve the combined use of a number of skills,should suggest a direction for school activities such as mathematics, languages, science andsocial studies but there was no evidence of such integrated learning and cross-disciplinecollaborative endeavours. This line of reasoning is consistent with research evidence on or-ganisational learning which suggests that connecting people who speak from diverse per-spectives and experiences is essential to organisational health and effectiveness (Senge,2006).

Teamwork

This study finds that current Mauritian school leadership practice, at least in the sampledschools, is focused on the formal leader and ignores the leadership capacity and potentialthat exists throughout the school. Morally and practically, the emphasis on the leader isinappropriate and needs to be replaced by recognition of leadership as a collective capacitythat is reflected in structures, processes and relationships (West-Burnham, 2004, p 1). Teamsare likely to be a powerful way of developing potential and capacity. The most prominentfeature is that of teams communicating laterally and their closeness to internal and externalstakeholders (Lycke, 2003). Teams can be viewed as nurseries where there are abundantopportunities to develop and learn the artistry of leadership in a secure and supportive envir-onment (West-Burnham, 2004, p 5).

Principals adhered to a very traditional conception of teamwork where the school leaderor another manager would take control and preside over the destiny of the group of peopleassembled for a specific function or project. In all cases, formal school leaders were adamantthat they had to retain the right to oversee the strategic direction of the school or that theywere the only ones in charge of the system. One principal made it clear:

A parent could make inputs about school matters to the committee and the chairpersonwould submit the input to the school leadership team. Committee members know,however, that their powers are restricted and that the school [leadership] team has thefinal say on policy matters. (PF)

10


Principals made contradictory comments about an emphasis on building effective workingrelationships, however. In general, while principals claimed their penchant to collaborativeapproaches centred on issues such as curriculum pedagogy and assessment, their very owncomments revealed a major contradictionleadership was not distributed but was ratherconcentrated at the top and was very much concerned with the implementation of policydirectives.

A most obvious departure from Demings notion of teamwork is that most principals feltthat professional learning ought to be a matter of the individual teachers own responsibility.This was evident in comments such as:

Teachers are adults who know how to take care of themselves. They know what theyneed to do to improve their own education and personal development. (PB)

It is required of teachers to put in all effort in the planning and preparation of their les-sons and to be responsible for their own professional and personal development so asto teach more effectively. (PE)

Deming (2000) makes a distinction between the impact of individual learning and that ofteam learning, and recommends breaking down barriers between departments within theorganisation. If teams learn, they become micro-cosmic for learning throughout the organ-isation. Team accomplishments can set the tone and establish standards for learning togetherfor the larger organisation. The key point is that teamwork recognises and uses complexityin a way that individuals are unable to (Oakland, 2003).

Focus on the System

Another significant finding in this study is that none of the principals assumed their leadershiprole as a systemic one, but were rather concerned and focused on what was happening intheir own schools as stand-alone sites. Whatever the publicly stated vision of the participatingschools, in reality, principals were functioning in a mode which conceived their leadershipas bounded by their own interests or those of their schools. Collective responsibility in theMauritian educational system was a far cry from reality and, at least in the sampled schools,the impetus to compete and succeed at the expense of other schools remained strong. Prin-cipals also perceived that any gestures of assistance to other schools would be cynically re-jected. As one principal explained:

Of course, we could have reached out to low performing schools to assist them in termsof teaching methods, learning resources and management practice. As a leadingschool, we could have set the example, but there is also the problem of other schoolsnot wanting to be shown how to do things. They would surely be saying say: But whoare you? or Do you think you are that perfect? (PA)

There is the suggestion in the above comment that there are problems with the teachers,students and their parents in lower achieving schools, which are condemned and marginalised.The reservation set by the principal is also an indication that some schools perceived them-selves as quality schools, but did not see themselves having a role to produce a qualityeducation system at the national (or international) level.

11


Mauritius is such a small country that the educational system can be viewed as a singlesocial organisation composed of many schools, similar to a school district in some othercountries. This larger system needs to constantly improve as an entity if Mauritius is to raiseeducational standards over the long term. Besides, raising a countrys economic competitive-ness necessitates curtailing competition in education, not increasing it (Caro, 2010). Theway forward in the drive towards total quality is to improve constantly and forever the systemby building partnerships of trust and cooperation among educational institutions to supporteach others continuous improvement efforts. There is a burgeoning literature indicating thatpartnerships can significantly improve the learning experience, achievement and life chancesof students (e.g. Higham and Yeomans, 2005; Lumby and Morrison, 2006). Such networksof support at the macro level are essential for learning and improvement to be optimised atthe micro level (Bonstingl, 2001).

If school leaders, policy makers and central education authorities in Mauritius obstinatelycontinue to envision the educational leadership arena as delimited by the traditional structurein which single schools function autonomously, then they will not reflect cooperation andmutuality in trusting partnerships with alignment of goals and values (Lumby and Morrison,2006). Neither will the Mauritian educational system liberate itself from its present ingrainedcompetitive orientation which blatantly applauds the reinforcement of stratified prestigious,so-called star schools to the detriment of a significant majority of students in weakerschools. Real educational leadership would be for school leaders and central education au-thorities to challenge the so-called star-school system as an issue of social injustice. Researchsuggests benefits for all students and staff through schools networking, clustering, mergingand connecting in tangible ways (Starr and White, 2008). By pooling resources and agreeingon some degree of mutual development, schools could create new possibilities in ways thatwould not otherwise have been possible.

Implications for Further Research

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever study on TQM in primary and secondaryeducation in Mauritius at the national level. As there are no studies with which to comparethe findings of the present study, they are certainly worth exploring in further studies. Futureresearch can improve upon the findings of the present study by using larger samples ofprincipals and raters other than principals, such as deputy principals, heads of year group,heads of department, teachers, students and parents. This type of research can potentiallytriangulate the findings of the present study, provide more comprehensive findings aboutsuccessful school leadership practices and offer a richer and more accurate description ofleadership reality in Mauritius.

Conclusion

By and large, the findings reported in this study paint a rather gloomy picture of schoolleadership in Mauritius in relation to the application of effective practices embedded withinthe TQM paradigm despite government aims. While critics might point out that TQM is anideal which is hard to achieve, it precisely serves the purpose of an ideal: that is, to providea benchmark and goal against which to measure progress. Principals responses in this studyindicate that TQM discourses are accepted and even applauded, but their fulfillment in

12


practice will require considerable adjustments to current implicit leadership theory andpractices. However, education authorities reaffirm the governments vision of Mauritius asa world player in the vanguard of global progress and innovation and to make the Mauritianeconomy more internationally competitive, and hence a systematic initiative for quality im-provement is required even though its implementation may be difficult.

13


ReferencesBerry, G. (1997). Leadership and the development of quality culture in schools. International Journal

of Educational Management, 11(2), 5264.Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure Is Not an Option: Six principles that guide student achievement in

high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: HOPE Foundation/Corwin Press.Bonstingl, J. J. (2001). Schools of Quality (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003). School Leadership: Concepts and evidence. UK: National College

for School Leadership.Caro, J. (2010). The winner takes it all. Education Review, May, 2010, 1819.Cherubini, L. (2007). A collaborative approach to teacher induction: Building beginning teacher capacity.

Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.De Jager, H. J. and Nieuwenhuis, F. J. (2005). Linkages between total quality management and the

outcomes-based approach in an education environment. Quality in Higher Education, 11(3),251260.

Deming, W. E. (2000). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Evans, J. R. (2007). Impacts of information management on business performance. Benchmarking:An International Journal, 14(4), 517533.

Evans, R. (2001). The Human Side of School Change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problemsof innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). New York, NY: TeachersCollege Press.

Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professionallearning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114, 541581.

Gandolfi, F. (2006). Can a school organization be transformed into a learning organization? Contem-porary Management Research, 2(1), 5772.

Gannicott, K. (1997). Taking education seriously: A reform program for Australias schools. St. Le-onards, NSW: Centre for Independent Studies.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. and Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes profes-sional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 38(4), 915945.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative re-search. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing Research in the Real World (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management

and Administration, 28(3), 317338.Gronn, P. (2003). The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of

school reform. London: Paul Chapman.Groundwater-Smith, S. (2005). Through the keyhole into the staffroom: Practitioner inquiry into school.

AHIGS Conference. Shore School.Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable leadership and development in education: Creating the future,

conserving the past. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 223233.Hargreaves, A. and Fink, A. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693700.Higham, J. J. S. and Yeomans, D. J. (2005). Collaborative Approaches to 1419 Provision: An evalu-

ation of the second year of the 1419 Pathfinder Initiative. Nottingham: Department forEducation and Skills (DfES).

14


Knapp, M. S., Swinnerton, J. A., Copland, M. A. and Monpas-Huber, J. (2006). Data-informed Lead-ership in Education. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study ofTeaching and Policy.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School Leadership:What it is and how it influences pupil learning. London: DfES.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., and Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributingleadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policyin Schools, 6, 3767.

Lumby, J. and Morrison, M. (2006). Collective leadership of local school systems: Power, autonomyand ethics. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Council for Educational AdministrationConference, Lefkosia, Cyprus, 1217 October.

Lycke, L. (2003). Team development when implementing TPM. Total Quality Management, 14(2),205213.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (2nd ed.). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Ministry of Education and Human Resources (MEHR) (2006). Quality Inititiatives for a World ClassQuality Education. Port Louis, Mauritius: MEHR.

Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (MESR) (1998). Action Plan for a New EducationSystem in Mauritius. Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.

Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (MESR) (2001a). Ending the Rat Race in PrimaryEducation and Breaking the Admission Bottleneck at Secondary Level: The Way Forward.Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.

Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (MESR) (2001b). Reforms in Education: CurriculumRenewal in the Primary Sector. Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.

Ministry of Education and Scientific Research (MESR) (2003). Towards Quality Education for All.Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.

Mukhopadhyay, M. (2005). Total Quality Management in Education (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Sage.Oakland, J. S. (2003). Total Quality Management: Text with cases (3rd ed.). London: Elsevier.Sallis E. (2002). Total Quality Management in Education (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.Schildkamp, K. and Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes,

and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and teacher education, 26(33), 482496.Schildkamp, K. and Teddlie, C. (2008). School performance feedback systems in the USA and in the

Netherlands: A comparison. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(3), 255282.Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Revised

ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools That

Learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares abouteducation. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Shen, J. and Cooley, V. E. (2008). Critical issues in using data for decision-making. InternationalJournal of Leadership in Education, 11(3), 319329.

Silins, H. and Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In Leithwood, K. and Hallinger, P.(eds.). Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp561612). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Starr, K. (in press). Principals and the politics of resistance to change. Educational Management, Ad-

ministration and Leadership: 39/6, November 2011. Sage, UK.Starr, K. and Oakley, C. (2008). Teachers leading learning: The role of principals. The Australian

Educational Leader, 30(4), 3436.Starr, K. and White, S. (2008). The small rural school principalship: Key challenges and cross-school

responses. Journal for Research in Rural Education, 23(5), 112.

15


Wayman, J. C., Jimerson, J. B. and Cho, V. (2011). Organizational considerations in educational datause. Paper presented at the 2011 meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA.

West-Burnham, J. (2004).Building Leadership CapacityHelping Leaders Learn: An NCSL thinkpiece.UK: National College for School Leadership.

Wilms, W. W. (2003). Altering the structure and culture of American public schools. Phi Delta Kappan,84(8), 606615.

About the Authors

Jean Claude Ah-TeckDeakin University, Australia

Prof. Karen StarrDeakin University, Australia

16


Copyright of International Journal of Learning is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its contentmay not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's expresswritten permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Quality Mauritus