Multi-models of quality in education

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

The authors Yin Cheong Cheng is Director and Professor and Wai Ming Tam is Lecturer at The Centre for Research and Development, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong. Abstract Suggests that there is a strong emphasis on the pursuit of education quality in ongoing educational reforms in both local and international contexts. Policies issued to implement educational changes for education quality often fail because of lack of comprehensive understanding of the complex nature of education quality in schools or higher education institutions. Introduces seven models of quality in education: the goals and specications model; the resources input model; the process model; the satisfaction model; the legitimacy model; the absence of problems model; and the organizational learning model. Concludes that these models can form a comprehensive framework for understanding and conceptualizing quality in education from different perspectives and facilitating development of management strategies for achieving it. The framework can contribute to ongoing policy discussion, school practice, and research development on issues of quality in education institutions.

In the past decade, following rapid economic development, the education systems of most countries or areas in the Asia-Pacic region have been expanded quickly. Currently, the people in this region are concerned with not only education quantity but also education quality. For example, in Hong Kong, a number of policy efforts have been put into improvement of different aspects of education such as curriculum, language teaching, student guidance, student streaming, management, teacher-student ratio, physical environment, and teacher education (Education and Manpower Branch and Education Department, 1991; Education Commission, 19841992). Although these efforts aim at improving education quality and discharging accountability, they are suffering from poor understanding of the complex nature of education quality and lack of a system of education standards and indicators for directing practices and monitoring performance. The effects of these efforts are often problematic and doubted by the public. This seems to be a serious problem when compared with the huge investment in the education system. Recently, China and some other rapidly developing societies in the Asia-Pacic region have been facing similar problems of education quality in development of education. Also, there are different types of educational reform in search of education quality in developed countries such as the USA, UK, and Australia (Cheng, 1994a, 1996). Responding to the rapidly growing concern about education quality in the international and local contexts, this paper aims at developing a framework of multi-models of quality in education for facilitating practice, supporting policy making, and developing research agendas.

General conception of education quality

In the management literature, the term quality has different meanings and has been variously dened as excellence (Peters and

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 pp. 2231 MCB University Press ISSN 0968-4883

This article is one of the reports of an ongoing research project on Educational quality in Hong Kong secondary schools indicators and organizational determinants that is supported by an Earmarked Research Grant awarded from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Government to the rst author. The authors appreciate the nancial support of the Council.

22

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

Waterman, 1982), value (Feigenbaum, 1951), tness for use (Juran and Gryna, 1988), conformance to specications (Gilmore, 1974), conformance to requirement (Crosby, 1979), defect avoidance (Crosby, 1979), meeting and/or exceeding customers expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985), etc. There seems to be no consensus denition even though most of these denitions are highly correlated. Similarly, education quality is a rather vague and controversial concept in research and policy discussion. To different people, the denition may be different and so the indicators used to describe education quality may be different (Fuller, 1986; Hughes, 1988). Some may emphasize the quality of inputs to the education systems whereas others emphasize the quality of processes and outcomes. No matter whether referring to input, process, outcome, or all of these, the denition of education quality may often be associated with tness for use, the satisfaction of the needs of strategic constituencies (e.g. policy makers, parents, school management committee, teachers, students, etc.) or conformance to strategic constituencies requirements and expectations.

education quality is a multidimensional concept and cannot be easily assessed by only one indicator

very different, if not contradictory. It is often difcult for an education institution to meet all the expectations or needs at the same time. Therefore, it is not rare that the education quality in an education institution is high to the perceptions of some constituencies but not to others, or that some aspects of an education institution may be of high quality but other aspects may be of low quality (Hughes, 1988). For assessing school education quality, different indicators may be developed to give information about the performance of an education institution in different aspects of input, process, and outcome. The difference in the choice of and the emphasis on indicators may reect the diverse interests and expectations among the concerned constituencies and also the different management strategies used to achieve education quality under certain environmental constraints within a certain time frame. In other words, based on different conceptions of education quality and different concerns about achievement of education quality, different people may use different indicators to assess education quality and different strategies to achieve education quality. The focus of these indicators and strategies may not necessarily include all aspects of the input, process, and outcome of an education institution.

Models of quality in education

Borrowing the ideas from total quality management (Tenner and Detoro, 1992) and system approach, Cheng (1995a) dened education quality as follows:
Education quality is the character of the set of elements in the input, process, and output of the education system that provides services that completely satisfy both internal and external strategic constituencies by meeting their explicit and implicit expectations.

To a large extent, this denition includes the important characteristics of quality espoused in the management literature. If we accept this denition, the conception of education quality will involve the characteristics of input, process, output and multiple constituencies of an education institution. Therefore, education quality is a multi-dimensional concept and cannot be easily assessed by only one indicator. Furthermore, the expectations of different constituencies on education may be 23

In order to understand the complex nature of education quality and to develop management strategies for achieving it, it should be necessary to review the different conceptions or models of education quality explicitly or implicitly held by concerned constituencies in practice or by scholars in research. In the past decades, research on organizational effectiveness and school effectiveness has brought forth fruitful results and has guided many of the improvement endeavours (Scheerens, 1992), yet relatively little research has been done on the topic of education quality (Cheng, 1995a). If we believe that both effectiveness and quality are the concepts used to understand performance of an education institution in providing educational services, we can expect that the literature of effectiveness may be borrowed to understand and conceptualize quality in education institutions. Based on the models of organizational

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

Table I Models of Education quality

Conception of education quality Goal and specication model Achievement of stated institutional goals conformance to given specications

Conditions for model usefulness When institutional goals and specications are clear, consensual, time-bound, and measurable When resources are sufcient to achieve the goals and conform to the specications When there is a clear relationship between inputs and outputs When quality resources for the institution are scarce When there is a clear relationship between process and educational outcomes

Indicators/key areas for quality evaluation (with examples) Institutional objectives, standards, and specications listed in the programme plans, e.g. academic achievements, attendance rate, dropout rate, etc.

Resource-input Achievement of model needed quality resources and inputs for the institution

Resources procured for institutional functioning, e.g. quality of student intake, facilities, nancial support, etc. Leadership, participation, social interactions, classroom climate, learning activities and experiences, etc. Satisfaction of education authorities, management board, administrators, teachers, parents, students, etc. Public relations, marketing, public image, reputation, status in the community, evidence of accountability, etc.

Process model

Smooth internal process and fruitful learning experiences

Satisfaction model

Satisfaction of all powerful constituencies

When the demands of the constituencies are compatible and cannot be ignored

Legitimacy model

Achievement of the institutions legitimate position and reputation

When the survival and demise among education institutions must be assessed When the environment is very competitive and demanding When there is no consensual criteria of quality but strategies for improvement are needed When institutions are new or changing When the environmental change cannot be ignored

Absence of problems model

Absence of problems and troubles in the institution

Absence of conicts, dysfunctions, difculties, defects, weaknesses, troubles, etc. Awareness of external needs and changes, internal process monitoring, programme evaluation, development planning, staff development, etc.

Organizational learning model

Adaptation to environmental changes and internal barriers Continuous improvement

effectiveness and school effectiveness summarized by Cameron and Whetten (1983) and Cheng (1990,1996), seven models of education quality can be proposed to illustrate the different conceptions that can be used to deepen understanding and develop management strategies, as shown in Table I. 24

The goal and specication model This model sees education quality as achievement of stated goals and conformance to given specications. The goal and specication model is often used in the assessment of education quality of individual institutions or education systems in a country. It assumes

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

that there are clear, enduring, normative and well-accepted goals and specications as indicators and standards for education institutions or education systems to pursue or conform to. An education institution is deemed to be of good education quality if it has achieved the stated goals or conformed to the specications listed in the institutional plan or programme plans. Typical examples of quality indicators may include students academic achievements, attendance rate, dropout rate, and personal developments, number of graduates enrolled in universities or graduate schools, professional qualications of staff, etc. This model is useful if the goals and specications used for judging education quality are clear and accepted by all involved constituencies, and that there are appropriate indicators which one can use to evaluate whether the institutions have attained the prescribed education standards. An advantage of this model of education quality is that it enables the institution management to focus attention on key components of education programmes. The resource-input model Here education quality is regarded as the natural result of achievement of quality resources and inputs for the institution. Because of the pressure of diverse expectations of multiple constituencies, an education institution may be required to pursue different goals and conform to diverse specications and standards. The resource-input model assumes that scarce and quality resources are necessary for education institutions to achieve diverse objectives and provide quality services in a short time. Therefore, education quality is assumed to be the natural result of achievement of scarce resources and inputs for the institution. The education quality indicators may include high quality student intake, more qualied staff recruited, better facilities and equipment, better staffstudent ratio, and more nancial support procured from the central education authority, alumni, parents, sponsoring body or any outside agents. This model is useful if the connections between quality of inputs and outputs are clear (Cameron, 1984) and the resources are very limited for education institutions to achieve stated goals or conform to given specications. In some Asian countries and cities (e.g. Hong Kong), quality student input is often seen as an important indicator of an education institutions success. Attraction of 25

high quality student input seems to be a necessary condition for some institutions to become successful or achieve high academic performance in examinations. It is often believed that students from low socio-economic status families may bring a lot of behavioural and criminal problems from the community, which seriously hinder the educational process. In order to help problem students, more resources are needed, if they are not reallocated from other institutional purposes. The capacity of acquiring scarce and quality resources represents the potential of an education institution that can promise high education quality particularly in a context of great resource competition. To some extent, the model redresses the limitation of the goal and specication model, linking education quality to the environmental context and resources input.

the process model assumes that an educational institution is of high education quality if its internal functioning is smooth and healthy

Obviously, this model has its defects because its overemphasis only on acquisition of inputs may reduce the institutional effort put into educational processes and outputs. The acquired resources may become wastage if they cannot be used efciently to enhance quality of process and outcomes. The process model In this model education quality is seen as smooth and healthy internal process and fruitful learning experiences. The process in an education institution is a transformational process which converts inputs into performance and output. A smooth internal institutional process enables staff to perform the teaching task effectively and students to gain fruitful learning experiences easily. The nature and quality of the institution of process often determine the quality of output and the degree to which the planned goals can be achieved. Particularly in education, experience in process is often taken as a form of educational aims and outcomes. Therefore, the process model assumes that an educational institution is of high education quality if its internal functioning is smooth and healthy.

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

Important internal activities or practices in the educational institution are often taken as the important indicators of education. Leadership, communication channels, participation, co-ordination, adaptability, planning, decision making, social interactions, social climate, teaching methods, classroom management, learning strategies, and learning experiences are often used as indicators of education quality. The process in an educational institution generally includes management process, teaching process, and learning process. Thus the selection of indicators may be based on these processes, classied as management quality indicators (e.g. leadership, decision making), teaching quality indicators (e.g. teaching efcacy, teaching methods), and learning quality indicators (e.g. learning attitudes, attendance rate). If there is a clear relationship between the process in institutional and educational outcomes, this model should be useful. For example, democratic education is strongly emphasized in educational institutions. If we believe that a democratic management process and a democratic teaching process in an educational institution are the necessary conditions for implementing democratic education (Cheng, 1987a,b), then the indicators of a democratic process in an educational institution such as participation in decision making and partnership in teaching and learning, may be chosen as criteria for evaluating educational quality in implementing democratic education. To a certain extent, the current emphasis on the importance of leadership and culture to the performance of educational institutions may reect the importance of the process model (Caldwell and Spinks, 1992; Cheng, 1994b; Sergiovanni, 1984). The process model has its limitations, such as the difculty in monitoring processes and gathering related data, and the focus on quality of means instead of quality of ends. The satisfaction model According to this model education quality is dened as the satisfaction of strategic constituencies. The satisfaction model assumes that the satisfaction of strategic constituencies of an educational institution is critical to its survival (Cheng, 1990) and therefore education quality should be determined by the extent to which the performance of an educational institution can satisfy the needs and 26

expectations of its powerful constituencies. In the school setting, the powerful constituencies may include teachers, management board members, parents, students, alumni, and ofcers at the education department. Education quality may be a relative concept, depending on the expectations of concerned constituencies or parties. If expected education quality is high and diverse, it will be difcult for institutions to achieve it and satisfy the needs of multiple constituencies. If expected education quality is low and simple, of course it will be easier for educational institutions to achieve it and satisfy the expectations of constituencies so that educational institutions may be perceived as high quality more easily. Furthermore, the objective measurement of quality achievement is often technically difcult and conceptually controversial. Therefore satisfaction of powerful constituencies is often used instead of some objective indicators as the critical element to assess quality in education institution. This model emphasizing satisfaction of clients or conformance to clients expectations or specications is the very popular model used in the business sector to assess quality.

if the demands of powerful constituencies conict and cannot be satised at the same time, the model may not be appropriate

If the demands of all the powerful constituencies of an education institution are compatible and the education institution has to respond to these demands, this model may be useful in studying education quality. The indicators of education quality are often the satisfaction of students, teachers, parents, administrators, the education authority, the management committee, alumni, etc. In some Eastern societies such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, the management board of an educational institution has a dominant inuence. In comparison, the inuence of parents, students, staff and the public may not so strong. Therefore, satisfaction of the management board of an education institution is often the most important indicator of education quality. If the management board demands high achievement in academic and athletic activities, the education institution can be seen of high

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

education quality only if it can satisfy these demands. If the demands of powerful constituencies conict and cannot be satised at the same time, the model may not be appropriate. The legitimacy model Education quality is regarded here as the achievement of an education institutions legitimate position or reputation. In the past, when the educational environment changed slowly and educational institutions received relatively few external challenges, survival of educational institutions might be guaranteed by the central education authority. There seemed little need for the education institutions to ensure any legitimacy for their survival. But now, under the impact of rapid changes and developments, the educational environment becomes more challenging and competitive. Educational institutions have to compete seriously for resources and overcome internal barriers, and on the other hand, they have to face the external challenges and demands for accountability and value for money (Education and Manpower Branch and Education Department, 1991; Working Group on Educational Standards, 1994). It is hardly possible for educational institutions to continue or survive without ensuring legitimacy in the community. In order to gain legitimacy for survival and to acquire critical resource, educational institutions have to win the support of the community, build up good public image and show evidence of accountability. The legitimacy model assumes that an educational institution needs to be accepted and supported by the community in order to survive and achieve its mission. Along this line of thinking, the indicators of education quality are often related to the activities and achievements of public relations and marketing, accountability, public image, reputation, or status in the community, etc. Educational institutions should operate educational programmes which conform to the ethical and moral norms of the community in order to gain legitimacy. They also need to promote their own image, in such ways as participating in district-wide contests, organizing exhibitions of students work, maintaining a good relationship with district leaders, etc. The model is useful when the survival and demise of educational institutions must be assessed in a changing environment. For example, in some old districts, the student population reduces quickly and some educa27

tion institutions or schools have to be closed if not enough parents are willing to send their children to them. Among the educational institutions at risk, only those successfully striving for legitimacy or better public relations with the community can survive. From the standpoint of this model, educational institutions are of high education quality if they can survive in a competing environment. The current emphasis on parental choice and accountability in educational reforms in both Western and Eastern societies seems to support the importance of the legitimacy model for assessing school education quality. Increase in parental choice of educational institutions may create a competitive market environment in which educational institutions have to compete and try their best to provide high quality educational services for the needs of parents. Also, the implementation of accountability systems or quality assurance systems provides a formal mechanism for educational institutions to gain the necessary legitimacy for survival. This can explain why so many educational institutions nowadays are paying more attention to public relations, marketing activities, and building up schoolbased accountability systems or quality assurance systems. The absence of problems model According to this model education quality means the absence of problems and troubles. Borrowing the idea of the ineffectiveness model (Cameron, 1984), it is often easier to recognize problems in an institution than to identify its quality because appropriate indicators and measurement techniques which can provide concrete evidence of quality are often difcult to obtain. Hence, instead of looking for quality in an education programme, one inspects the educational institution to check whether problems exist.

identifying strategies for the improvement of an educational institution can be more precisely done by analysing problems and defects as opposed to education quality

The absence of problems model assumes that if there is an absence of problems, troubles, defects, weaknesses, difculties, and dyfunctions in an educational institution, this institution is of high education quality. Problems and deciencies signal warnings to the admin-

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

istration that some aspects of education quality may be lacking. Hence, during a inspection on an education institution, if no apparent problem arises from its operation, then this institution is assumed to be running smoothly and is fullling its educational objectives. This is perhaps the oldest concept of quality in use in industry (Feigenbaum, 1951). Quality control experts tend to look at quality as meaning less scrap, rework, warranty costs, etc., for the nal product. The management team of an educational institution may set up stringent quality assurance and monitoring system in order to ensure a deciency-free environment. Identifying strategies for the improvement of an educational institution can be more precisely done by analysing problems and defects as opposed to education quality. Therefore, this model is useful particularly when the criteria of education quality are really unclear but strategies for improvement are needed. In general, many education institutions, particularly new ones, are more concerned with overcoming obstacles to basic school functioning than with pursuing excellent quality. This model may be appropriate to them. For those practitioners such as administrators and teaching staff, the absence of problems model may be more basic than the other models. But if people are more interested in high performance or excellent education quality, this model is not sufcient. The organizational learning model Here education quality is considered to mean continuous development and improvement. The changing educational environment is producing great impacts on nearly every aspect of functioning in education institutions. There seems to be no static factor or single practice that contributes to education quality for ever. Some practices may be good at a certain time but not at another. Therefore, how to deal with environmental impacts and internal process problems is an key issue in assessing whether an educational institution can provide quality service continuously. The organizational learning model assumes that education quality is a dynamic concept involving continuous improvement and development of members, practices, process, and outcomes of an educational institution. A number of researchers have indicated that organizations, like human beings, can be empowered to learn and inno28

vate to provide quality services (Fullan, 1993; Schmuck and Runkel, 1985; Senge, 1990). To some extent, this model is similar to the process model. The difference is that this model emphasizes the importance of learning behaviour for ensuring quality in education; whether the internal process is currently smooth is not so critical. This line of thinking supports the current emphasis of strategic management and development planning in education (Dempster et al., 1993; Hargreaves and Hopkins, 1991). The model is particularly useful when educational institutions are developing or involved in educational reform, particularly in a changing external environment. The indicators of education quality may include awareness of community needs and changes, internal process monitoring, programme evaluation, environmental analysis, development planning, etc.

procuring scarce resources for effective functioning and ensuring smooth and healthy internal processes and fruitful learning experiences are critical in order to achieve stated goals and produce high quality educational outcomes

In developing countries, there are many new educational institutions because of the expansion of the education systems. The new institutions have to face many problems in establishing organizational structures, educational processes, dealing with poor quality students, developing staff, and struggling against adverse inuences from the community. Also, changes in the economic and political environment demand an effective adaptation of the education system in terms of curriculum change, management change, and technology change (Cheng, 1995b). Against such a background, this organizational learning model may be appropriate for studying education quality. Obviously, the usefulness of this model will be limited if the connection between organizational learning process and educational outcomes is not clear. For example, some old educational institutions have their prestige traditions that can attract a high quality student input. Even though they may lack organizational learning, they can still win

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

relatively high student achievement and high status in the community.

Conclusion
The seven models have their own strengths and weaknesses, with emphasis on different aspects of the process for pursuing quality in education. Their applicability is not universal in all situations and their usefulness is often limited by contextual conditions. One model may be applicable in some specic contexts but not in others. As discussed above, some illustrations of the conditions for usefulness of these models have been summarized in Table I. Traditionally many people tend to use these models separately to ensure quality in education. But we should pay attention to their interrelationship and use a comprehensive approach to apply them in managing education quality. From the systems perspective, the seven models of education quality may be interrelated and their relationship can be analysed as follows: As a system, the input, process, and output of an educational institution, and the feedback loop from output to input form a chain, and the performance of one part inuences the others. Goals of an education institution including input goals, process goals, or outcome goals can reect the expectations, needs, and specications of powerful constituencies. Procuring scarce resources for effective functioning (i.e. the system-resource model) and ensuring smooth and healthy internal processes and fruitful learning experiences (i.e. the process model) are critical in order to achieve stated goals and produce high quality educational outcomes. The achievement of stated goals and conformance to given specications (i.e. the goals and specications model) can bring satisfaction to the concerned constituencies ( i.e. the satisfaction model). Also, by establishing a relationship with the community, building up a public image, and showing accountability, an educational institution can achieve its legitimate position (i.e. the legitimate model) for its survival and quality reputation. Then, by carefully monitoring its programmes and checking signs of ineffectiveness through the feedback loop, the educational institution can ensure that no endemic problem is emerging in education quality (i.e. the absence of problems model). Finally, the educational institu29

tion continues to improve and develop itself in all important aspects through learning from its errors and its environment (i.e. the organizational learning model). It seems that the seven models reect the different emphases on different aspects of an education institution in pursuing quality. In order to achieve total quality in education, the application of all these models as a whole may be necessary. Every educational institution may have its own criteria of education quality and may try to achieve all of them. Because of the limited timeframes and environmental constraints, it is often difcult to achieve all these quality criteria with limited resources. An educational institution may choose to focus its strength on certain aspects of quality which seem to be crucial at the current stage. In order to ensure the attainment of high level of education quality under many constraints, some educational institutions may focus their attention on the acquisition of scarce resource input; some may focus on the management of the internal process or learning strategies; some may prioritize the needs of their constituencies and try to satisfy those of the powerful constituencies. This may be the reason why different models are used to understand and manage quality in education. However, when some criteria of education quality are strongly emphasized, and energy and resources are often concentrated on their attainment, other aspects of quality will tend to be neglected. Symptoms of ineffectiveness or poor performance may then emerge owing to ignorance of other criteria, which can hamper the overall education quality in the education institution in the long run. Therefore, practitioners should be aware of this dilemma and develop long-term strategies to handle the dilemma and achieve education quality on all multiple criteria, even if not at the same time (Cheng, 1994a). In other words, all the seven models of quality in education should be important in long-term planning for achieving total education quality. This may be the reason why total quality management in educational institutions has been strongly emphasized recently (Bradley, 1993; Greenwood and Gaunt, 1994; Murgatroyd and Morgan, 1993). The critical elements of total quality management in an educational institution include focus on strategic constituencies ( e.g. parents, students, etc.), continuous process improvement, and total involvement and empowerment of members (Tenner and Detoro,

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

1992). According to the concepts of total quality management, quality in education can be totally ensured if an educational institution can involve and empower all its members in functioning, carry out continuous improvement in different aspects of internal process, and satisfy the requirements, needs, and expectations of its external and internal powerful constituencies even in a changing environment. To a great extent, the total quality management concept is an integration of the above seven models, particularly the organizational learning model, the satisfaction model, and the process model. The above seven models can provide a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing and understanding education quality from different perspectives. Obviously, the above analysis is based on the transfer of management theory to the eld of education. The limitations and implications of this international or cross-cultural transfer for education institutions at different levels may need further analysis and testing in a future study. Hopefully, this preliminary framework can contribute to the development of research, practice, management, and policy for education quality in current educational reforms in both local and international contexts.

Cheng, Y.C. (1993b), Management and effectiveness of moral and civic education in school: a framework for research and practice, paper presented at the International Conference on Moral and Civic Education, Hong Kong. Cheng, Y.C. (1994a), School effectiveness and schoolbased management: a mechanism for education quality and school development, keynote speech presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Melbourne. Cheng, Y.C. (1994b), Principals leadership as a critical indicator of school performance: evidence from multi-levels of primary schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement: an International Journal of Research, Policy, and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 299-317. Cheng, Y.C. (1995a), School education quality: conceptualization, monitoring, and enhancement, in Siu, P.K. and Tam T.K. (Eds), Quality in Education: Insights from Different Perspectives, Hong Kong Education Research Association, Hong Kong, pp. 123-47. Cheng, Y.C. (1995b), School effectiveness and improvement in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and mainland China, in Creemers, B.H.M. and Osinga, N. (Eds), ICSEI Country Reports, Gemeenschappeli jk Centrum voor Onderwijsbegeleiding in Friesland, Leeuwarden, pp. 11-30. Cheng, Y.C. (1996), The Pursuit of School Effectiveness: Theory, Policy, and Research, The Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Cheng, Y.C. and Tam, W.M. (1994), A theory of schoolbased staff development: development matrix, Education Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 221-36. Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, New American Library, New York, NY. Dempster, N., Sachs, J., Distant, G., Logan, L. and Tom, C. (1993), Planning in primary schools: a national study in Australian schools, paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Norrkoping, January. Education and Manpower Branch and Education Department (1991), The School Management Initiative: Setting the Framework for Quality in Hong Kong Schools, Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong. Education Commission. (1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992). Education Commission Report nos 1-5, The Government Printer, Hong Kong. Elmore, R. (1990), Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform, Jossey-Bass, San Franscisco, CA. Feigenbaum, A.V. (1951), Quality Control: Principles, Practice, and Administration, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Fullan, M. (1993), Change Forces, Falmer Press, London. Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1992), Teacher development and educational change, in Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (Eds), Teacher Development and Educational Change, Falmer Press, London. Fuller, B. (1986), Dening school quality, in Hannaway, J. and Lockheed, M.E. (Eds), The Contribution of Social

References and further reading

Bradley, L.H. (1993), Total Quality Management for Schools, Technomic, Lancaster, PA. Caldwell, B. and Spinks, J. (1988), The Self-managing School, Falmer Press, London. Caldwell, B.J. and Spinks, J.M. (1992), Leading the Selfmanaging School, Falmer Press, Lewes. Cameron, K.S. (1984), The effectiveness of ineffectiveness, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 235-85. Cameron, K.S. and Whetten, D.S. (Eds) (1983), Organizational Effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models, Academic Press, New York, NY. Cheng, Y.C. (1987a), Effectiveness of science teaching in contributing to civic education: what teaching strategies?, New Horizons, Vol. 28, pp. 129-41. Cheng, Y.C. (1987b), School process and effectiveness of civic education, Education Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 11-17. Cheng, Y.C. (1990), Conception of school effectiveness and models of school evaluation: a dynamic perspective, Education Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 47-62. Cheng, Y.C. (1993a), The theory and characteristics of school-based management, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6-17.

30

Multi-models of quality in education

Quality Assurance in Education Volume 5 Number 1 1997 2231

Yin Cheong Cheng and Wai Ming Tam

Science to Educational Policy and Practice: 19651985, McCutchan, Berkeley, CA.

Gilmore, H.L. (1974), Product conformance cost, Quality Progress, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 16-19. Greenwood, M.S. and Gaunt, H.J. (1994), Total Quality Management for Schools, Cassell, London. Hargreaves, A. (1994), Changing Teachers, Changing Times, Cassell, London. Hargreaves, D.H. and Hopkins, D. (1991), The Empowered School, Cassell, London. Hughes, P. (Ed.) (1988), The Challenge of Identifying and Marketing Quality in Education, The Australian Association of Senior Educational Administrators, Sydney, NSW. Juran, J.M. and Gryna, F.M. Jr (Eds), (1988), Jurans Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Lieberman, A., Saxl, E.R. and Miles, M.B. (1988), Teacher leadership: ideology and practice, in Lieberman, A., (Ed.), Building a Professional Culture in Schools, Teachers College Press, New York, NY. Murgatroyd, S. and Morgan, C. (1993), Total Quality Management and The School, Open University Press, Buckingham. Nias, J., Southworth, G. and Campbell, P. (1992), Whole School Curriculum Development in the Primary School, Falmer Press, Lewes.

OECD (1989), Schools and Quality: An International Report, OECD, Paris. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 41-50. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Schmuck, R.A. and Runkel, P.J. (1985), The Handbook of Organization Development in Schools, 3rd ed., Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY. Sergiovanni, T.J. (1984), Leadership and excellence in schooling, Educational Leadership, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 4-13. Sheerens, J. (1992), Effective Schooling: Research, Theory and Practice, Cassell, London. Tenner, A.R. and Detoro, I.J. (1992), Total Quality Management, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Wideen, M.F. (1992), School-based teacher development, in Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (Eds), Teacher Development and Educational Change, Falmer Press, London, Working Group on Educational Standards (1994), Quality in School Education, Education Commission, Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong.

31