A Question of Quality:
The Malcolm Baldrige
Criteria as Applied to Education
Dr. Savilla I. Banister, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Division of
Teaching and Learning
Bowling Green State University
529 Education,
BGSU, Bowling Green, OH 43403
(419) 372-7297
Paper presented at AERA Annual Meeting
2001
A Question of Quality:
The Malcolm Baldrige Criteria as Applied to Education
Annotation: This article examines the Baldrige
Criteria for continuous improvement and critiques the framework using data
collected from a school involved in its sixth year of implementing the
criteria. An argument is made to support a broader model of continuous
improvement that embraces a more aesthetic approach.
Abstract - This critique examines the corporate
world’s answer to improving our public schools: The Malcolm Baldrige Education
Criteria for Performance Excellence. It introduces and summarizes the Baldrige
process and questions the applicability of this business model to educational
settings.
Examples of implementation are included
from data collected from an elementary school that has been applying the
Baldrige process for a six-year period. Building on what the author describes as
an “aesthetic perspective”, the analysis of the Criteria in question is
undertaken with an allegiance to the ideas promoted by Elliot Eisner in The Enlightened Eye and Maxine Greene in
Releasing the Imagination.
Primary data sources include the Baldrige
Criteria documents published by the US Department of Commerce, transcriptions
of interviews from teachers using the Baldrige framework in their classrooms,
and documents (Baldrige reports and student data folders) from the school.
A
Question of Quality:
The Malcolm Baldrige
Criteria as Applied to Education
Five hundred twenty-five
thousand six hundred minutes,
Five hundred twenty-five
thousand six hundred moments so dear,
Five hundred twenty-five
thousand six hundred minutes,
How do you measure – measure
a year?
Jonathan Larson
The human species has, throughout
history, been engrossed in evaluation and measurement. We poke the melons in
the supermarket in an effort to determine which specimen is fit for our table.
We surround ourselves with kindred spirits by cross-referencing our personal
preferences of personality types with those we interact with each day. We
develop standards to determine the best restaurant, the best job, the best
home, and the best spouse, though we may not always overtly acknowledge these
mental guidelines. We discuss batting averages, gas mileage, the stock market,
and the Academy Awards with a keen eye toward quality in sports, products,
investments, and entertainment. It is not surprising, then, that we also desire
to spend a portion of our energies engaged in efforts to determine the quality
of our educational institutions.
When the focus is turned toward our
public schools in the United States, the demand for quality is imperious.
Taxpayers expect assurances that their money is being well spent. Parents want
to be certain that their children are receiving the best education possible.
Business owners clamor for graduates that can productively assimilate into the
workforce; and government leaders seek evidence that students are being trained
to function as active citizens in a democratic society. Our schools are under
pressure to produce documentation that will satisfy this spectrum of
expectations. But what kind of process can yield these results?
This article contrasts two
approaches to achieving school improvement: the corporate model, as described
in the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria, and the aesthetic model, as explained through
the writings of Elliot Eisner and Maxine Green. The implications for school
leaders are explored, considering examples from an urban elementary school that
has implemented the Baldrige Criteria since 1995.
Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award Program
The United States Department of
Commerce established the Baldrige National Quality Program and the Award
in1987. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of
the Department’s Technology Administration, manages the Baldrige Program,
assisted by the American Society for Quality (ASQ), under contract to NIST. A
Board of Overseers and a Board of Examiners function as an advisory
organization and as application reviewers, respectively.
Each of these units is characterized
by a competitive spirit and a dedication to American dominance in the world
economy. The NIST claims to promote U.S. economic growth through its work with
industry to “develop and deliver the high-quality measurement tools, data, and
services necessary for the nation’s technology infrastructure” (Hertz,
1999, p. ii).
Accelerating the development of high-risk technologies and helping small
businesses gain access to information and expertise needed to “improve their
competitiveness in the global marketplace” are priorities of the NIST (Hertz,
1999, p. ii).
The ASQ echoes this theme by striving to be “the world’s recognized champion
and leading authority on all issues related to quality” (Hertz,
1999, p.2).
Continuous quality improvement is seen as an avenue to increase the “favorable
positioning of American goods and services in the international marketplace” (Hertz,
1999, p. 2).
The Board of Overseers, which
recommends changes and improvements of the Baldrige Program to the Secretary of
Commerce and to the Director of NIST, is composed of national economic leaders.
Although these board members evaluate all aspects of the Program, one of their
chief responsibilities is to “assess how well the Program is serving the
national interest”(Hertz, 1999, p. 2).
The Board of Examiners, though composed of prominent business, health care, and
education experts, is chosen by NIST through a “competitive application
process.” The organizations that
constitute the framework of the Baldrige model are unashamedly focused on U.S.
economic competitiveness in the global market. While public schools are being
courted to enter into this process of continuous improvement, they must
recognize the criteria developed for this endeavor is rooted in government and
corporate experience.
In 1995, NIST began to develop pilot
programs for educational institutions, as well as health care facilities,
interested in pursuing the Baldrige Quality Award. Nineteen schools applied for
the pilots and received written evaluations on their performance management
systems. These feedback reports itemized the perceived strengths of each
school, as determined by the Board of Examiners, as well as their opportunities
for improvement. In May of 1997, the private Foundation for the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award began a fund drive to raise fifteen million
dollars as an endowment to begin a full-fledged award program for the education
and health care sectors. By 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton had
signed legislation to give educational institutions and health care
organizations eligibility in the complete Baldrige process.
The Education Criteria, published
for the award process in 1999 and funded by the Department of Education, were
to serve as a reliable basis for determining awards made to schools, and as a
diagnostic tool for a school’s overall performance management system. This
program is expected to improve overall school performance, encourage the
sharing of best practices, and develop partnerships between schools,
businesses, health care organizations, and human service agencies. However,
these criteria have the same framework and intent as the Business Criteria for
Performance Excellence, though they may differ in issues and language specific
to educational settings. The two result-oriented goals of the Criteria are:
·
Provision of ever-improving educational value to
students, contributing to their overall development and well-being; and
The remainder of this critique
concentrates on the aspects of the Baldrige Criteria focusing upon the first
goal. While it might be easier to recognize the connections between business
practices and school administrative demands embodied in the second goal, as a
classroom teacher in a school actively pursuing Baldrige recognition since
1995, this researcher is interested in how this model impacts student learning.
In keeping with this strategy, the next section explores four of the core
values and concepts presented as key to the Educational Criteria established by
the Baldrige hierarchy. Their interpretations of Learning-Centered Education,
Continuous Improvement and Organizational Learning, Design Quality and
Prevention, and Management by Fact are interpreted in the succeeding
paragraphs.
Learning-Centered Education
Learning-Centered Education, as promoted
by the Baldrige model, claims to place the focus of education on learning and
the real needs of students. Students’ real needs are assumed to stem from the
demands of the marketplace and the responsibilities of citizenship. Because
employees need to be problem solvers and efficient processors of information in
order to be competitive in the global economy, students need to develop
problem-solving skills. Students’ active learning is an essential component of
this process.
Continuous Improvement and Organizational
Learning
The Baldrige system is deeply rooted
in the core concept of Continuous Improvement and Organizational Learning. In
the program, schools are expected to demonstrate ever-higher levels of
performance through an expertly crafted approach to continuous improvement.
Clear goals for improvement are articulated, and measures and/or indicators are
developed and used to demonstrate progress towards these goals in this model;
this insures that the process is “fact-based”. It must also be systematic,
cycling through seasons of planning, execution, and evaluation and should focus
on Key Processes as the path to ever-better results.
Design Quality and Prevention
Another Core Concept of the Baldrige
model that relates to the first goal of providing educational value to students
is that of Design Quality and Prevention. In educational settings this division
concentrates on the effective design of educational programs, curricula, and
learning environments. Again, the emphasis is on clear learning objectives that
consider individual student needs – needs rooted in the expectations of the
marketplace and democratic society.
Management by Fact
A final Core Concept in the Baldrige
program is Management by Fact. This component accentuates the cause-effect
thinking firmly established in the Baldrige dialogue. A strong system of
measurement, information, data, and analysis combine to support the continuous
improvement design. A Baldrige school with a solid commitment to student
learning must utilize a comprehensive and integrated fact-based system. Schools
are encouraged to organize data systems to provide key information to support
the design of improvement strategies. Again, effectiveness is key and the Board
of Examiners looks closely at how proficient schools are in their use of
measurement and analysis to support student learning and school performance
improvement.
A
Summary of the Baldrige Model
Thus far, the historical and
structural elements that impacted the construction of the Baldrige Education Criteria
have been outlined. Focusing on the first goal of the Criteria – to provide
“ever-improving education value to students, contributing to their overall
development and well being”(Hertz, 1999, p. 35)
– four of the core values and concepts established for this process have been
highlighted.
The developers of the Baldrige plan
for educational improvement posit that this program is nonprescriptive and
adaptable, noting that the focus is on results, not specific practices, tools,
or organizations. “Schools are encouraged to develop and demonstrate creative,
adaptive, and flexible approaches for meeting basic requirements” (Hertz,
1999, p. 39).
The accuracy of this statement is challenged later in this article, once a
description of what a “creative and adaptive” approach is outlined.
Releasing the Imagination &
Developing the Enlightened Eye: School Improvement from the Perspectives of
Greene and Eisner
Greene:
Classrooms Transformed through Imagination
Maxine Greene believes the key to
transforming classrooms is the release of the imagination. She begins her
conceptualization of “imagination” with a discussion of the difference between
“seeing things small” versus “seeing things big.” The vision that sees things
small, in the context of schools, is “Preoccupied with test scores, ‘time on
task,’ management procedures, ethnic and racial percentages, and accountability
measures” (Greene, 1995, p. 9),
dismissing the presence of individuals. Those who see things big, she asserts,
attend to particular children, their families and their environment. Releasing
the imagination begins with the willingness to develop a vision from this point
of view.
Teachers who recognize individuals
are more likely to work in developing curricula that connect with students,
offering multiple options. These educators, who see things big, can move
forward to develop authentic assessments in their classrooms, rather than
succumb to assessments imposed by state and national agencies. Recognizing and
celebrating the diversity of students and teachers provides impetus for action.
Greene believes this type of vision has the potential to reform our schools.
As teachers and students begin to
develop this vision, Greene challenges them to further develop their
imaginative capacity by developing the ability to see things as they could
potentially be, rather than as they are. It is critical, she argues, to nurture
the ability to envision a better world, in order to make that world a reality.
A teacher with such a vision cannot help but inspire and encourage her students
to strive for excellence. This way of looking at the world causes teachers and
students to acquire a sense of mission, a quest to work toward a vision of how
things might be. This type of passion can be fostered through arts-enriched
curricula.
Greene claims that the arts should
be a central part of the school curricula because “Encounters with the arts
have a unique power to release imagination” (Greene,
1995, p. 27).
Literature, music, theater, fine arts, and dance combine to fill our minds with
images and emotions that move us to places beyond our daily experience. In the
same manner, “transformative pedagogies must relate both to existing conditions
and to something we are trying to bring into being, something that goes beyond
a present situation” (Greene,
1995, p. 51).
Children who are exposed to quality
arts experiences are given multiple avenues to tell their own stories, as they
have seen authors, artists, poets, and actors do. Much in our society squelches
the desire of individuals to share their narratives. We are bombarded by the
technological and the bureaucratic. Making meaning as unique persons and
exploring our place in a community can be encouraged through artistic
expression and appreciation.
Finally, the arts give students
multiple avenues to express their intelligence. Besides verbal and mathematical
languages, teachers can explore articulation through imagery, body movement,
and musical sound. Students are encouraged to find the paths that empower them
as citizens. A mastery of these types of expression allows teachers and
students to communicate in ways that speak across boundaries. Such
communication equips students as ambassadors for a better world, a world that
celebrates diversity and harmony.
In summary, Maxine Greene argues for
a curriculum that is expanding and deepening, that provides multiple options in
seeing the world through literature, images, and music. This type of curriculum
can begin the process of releasing the imaginations of those who feel trapped
in the educational and cultural confusion of our time. A vision that sees
things big and celebrates the uniqueness of personal journeys may lead to
schools that resonate with energy and life.
Eisner: Evaluating Classroom Quality
through the Enlightened Eye
Elliot Eisner
(1998), in his book, The Enlightened
Eye, champions an approach to qualitative inquiry based on the researcher’s
role as an educational “connoisseur”. Comparing the characteristics of a wine
connoisseur to one who can eloquently interpret the dynamics of a classroom, he
describes the development and benefits of such a viewpoint.
As the term suggests, qualitative
studies focus on the qualities
manifest in a particular setting, and Eisner begins his discussion on
connoisseurship by examining a connoisseur’s expertise in this dimension. A
wine connoisseur develops the ability to experience the visual, olfactory, and
gustatory qualities of wine. S/he also experiences these qualities as a sample
of a larger class, and is able to locate specific wines, as they are sampled,
within a specific array of wines. An educational connoisseur must be able to
examine a classroom, through observation, interviews, and document analysis,
and ascertain the significant qualities present in the setting. Furthermore,
the researcher must be able to coherently relate these qualities to a broader
pedagogical context.
Connoisseurship is more than the
ability to distinguish complex qualities and position these qualities in a more
general framework of previous experience. Knowledge of the conditions that give
rise to certain qualities is also necessary. A wine connoisseur is conscious of
the types of grapes, the harvest time, the manner in which the grapes are
pressed and processed, and the construction of the wine barrels, in the
interpretation of the qualities of a particular wine. So, too, Eisner argues,
educational connoisseurs must know the history of a situation, the values
present in a certain school, and some background information on particular
teachers and students, before adequate interpretations can be made. He concedes
that educational environments are extremely complex, and interpreting them in a
meaningful and relevant manner is most difficult.
Connoisseurship is an art of
appreciation, but appreciation does not always require a positive response. An
expert wine taster may taste a sample and make judgments based on the qualities
experienced, understanding and reflecting on the environmental factors that
impacted those qualities, without favorably categorizing the product. This
judgment is a result of the actual qualities experienced compared with years of
tasting, sniffing, and visually critiquing similar commodities. Wine makers
respect the discernment of a connoisseur, because these critics have proven
themselves masters of this art of appreciation. Educational leaders who intend
to develop this expertise in their field must convince stakeholders of their
abilities to examine educational contexts with similar insight.
Educational connoisseurs, then, must
be professionals who have developed, through experience and scholarship, the
ability to examine an educational phenomenon and elucidate the characteristics
of the phenomenon in a manner that judgments can be made concerning the
phenomenon’s value in the classroom setting. Eisner’s vision of the enlightened
eye is compelling, but problematic.
Recognizing and accepting
connoisseurship in a technological age where the scientific method and economic
projections seem to drive popular opinion is risky. We are people who desire
quick fixes and easy answers. A connoisseur offers detailed descriptions,
rather than impressive graphs and charts; this type of data is not acceptable
to a Board of Examiners. A connoisseur enumerates the variables to consider
concerning a problem, rather than pointing to “the answer.” A connoisseur
challenges us to develop a broader vision of a situation, rather than
maintaining a narrower, exclusionary view. Connoisseurs make us uncomfortable,
because they have the ability to emphasize the human, idiosyncratic side of
phenomena. Input from connoisseurs may be rejected by scientists and
businessmen who want “hard data” to drive their decisions. Connoisseurship cannot meet the needs of
such a clientele.
In the field of education, teachers
have traditionally been undervalued as key informants in reform agendas, though
their experience might qualify them as connoisseurs. If connoisseurship is
nurtured through multiple encounters in the school setting and an immersion in
classroom life, then many teachers should be recognized as experts. Teachers,
however, are seldom requested to share their insights and expertise in an
effort to improve schools. Rather, national and state governments, as well as
the local school boards, coupled with universities and corporations, drive
reform agendas. If wine makers value the opinion of an experienced wine
connoisseur, why do policy makers not consider teacher input significant?
Because the concept of connoisseurship
allows for the idiosyncratic characteristics of individual students, teachers,
classrooms, and schools, it necessarily poses an obstacle to local, state, or
national educational policy making. Attempts to prescribe curricula,
procedures, and structures for all classrooms do not acknowledge the variability
and diversity presented through data generated by connoisseurs. This is another
obstacle in the acceptance of such experts.
Despite the weight of resistance from the
camps of science, business, and government, connoisseurship offers promising alternatives.
Teachers’ voices can be given a more prominent position in educational dialogue
when their expertise is recognized. If they are encouraged to critically
examine their own classrooms and experiences and share them with colleagues and
administrators, changes may be accomplished that address the needs of
individual students.
Summary
of the Aesthetic Perspective
Viewing educational practices more
artistically and less scientifically promotes an emphasis on the complexity of
human interactions and values diversity.
Rather than expecting and emphasizing standardization in education, we
become freer to experiment, create, and celebrate the many ways people can
learn. Connoisseurship’s ability to provide rich descriptions of how this is
accomplished can encourage further exploration in this area. Multiple
intelligences, as well as multiple teaching and learning styles, can be valued
and nurtured through embracing teaching as an art, not a science.
Connoisseurship frees the educational
community from the bonds of narrow visions and restrictive views. By opening
our eyes to the multiplicity and complexity of the classroom, we can celebrate
the value of multiple options. We are not limited to one right answer, for
people demonstrate various approaches, each with value in certain settings.
Connoisseurs can facilitate in discovering and explicating individual successes
and unique approaches. Cultivating a reverence for the “specialness” of
teaching and learning is a wonderful product of these ideas.
Though the Baldrige model claims to be
nonprescriptive, encouraging creative and flexible approaches for meeting the
Criteria for school improvement, can a school actually embrace an aesthetic
vision, as delineated by Greene and Eisner, and demonstrate improvement as
defined by this Criteria? This question is explored in the final section of
this work, with supporting data gathered from an elementary school that has
been pursuing the Baldrige model over a six-year period.
The Baldrige Classroom and
the Aesthetic Vision
The Baldrige process does provide schools
with a framework in which to evaluate their work. Whether this framework is a
valuable structure that will enable educational institutions to improve student
learning is debatable (Fullan and Miles, 1992).
Revisiting the four core values and concepts of the Baldrige model, with some
discussion of their relationships to the writings of Greene and Eisner,
clarifies the discrepancies. Examples of experiences documented at a small,
inner-city elementary school are offered as challenges to the model.
Though "learning-centered
education" is a primary target of the Baldrige artillery, the definition
of the term cannot escape the business mindset. "Learning-centered"
is translated as "effectiveness" in providing students with skills to
enter the marketplace, and achievement is defined through standardized test
scores. Such interpretations are not new to the American educational scene. In
tracing the influences on American public schools up to the late 1950s, Kliebard
(1995) presents convincing evidence for what he entitles the "social
efficiency" camp. These educational reformists are focused on developing
schools that systematically produce students who are trained to enter the
workforce. A curriculum that addresses other concerns than that of creating
job-ready students is considered frivolous. In reporting student progress in a
Baldrige document, information presented that cannot be directly linked to
norm-referenced test scores or marketplace values is considered
"anecdotal" and unimportant.
Teachers struggled with these Baldrige
realities at Washington Elementary[1].
The staff initially chose to implement the Baldrige Criteria as a replacement
for their state’s mandated performance based accreditation process for schools.
Washington Elementary, serving an 80% at-risk population, was attempting to
improve the educational quality of the school and received a special waiver
from the state, allowing them to exempt the school from specific state
regulations. The state had created this New Horizon[2]
option to encourage innovative approaches in school reform. Washington was one
of the first schools in the state to be accepted into the program, and proposed
a balanced calendar, implementation of the Baldrige Criteria, and a
comprehensive tracking of student progress toward the state’s essential skills.
Exemption from statewide achievement testing was granted as a part of the New
Horizon initiative and teachers began an arduous process of developing
assessment tools and reports that would provide a clear picture of individual
student achievement and need.
However,
four years into this endeavor, administrative pressure from outside the school
forced the staff to abandon their elaborate and highly individualized
assessment and documentation system and again adopt the state standardized
tests for reporting achievement. The superintendent argued that the test scores
were needed as “comparative data” in order to meet the Baldrige Criteria. In
other words, the Baldrige model that the staff had chosen years earlier to
provide a framework for demonstrating the success of their initiatives was now
being used to force them back into a pattern of conformity.
From an aesthetic viewpoint, such
reasoning seems ludicrous. In order to improve classrooms, and eventually
society, students and teachers need to be encouraged to think beyond the
immediate requirements of the marketplace and the status quo. While achievement
tests may be able to provide a small indication of student progress, tremendous
amounts of information are beyond their scope (Meier, 2000).
Thick descriptions of classroom activities that, by Eisner's definition, might
provide evidence of a student's progress or achievement should be as valued as
standardized test scores. Portfolios that chronicle a student's development and
records journaling a student's experiences in the visual arts, music, and drama
are examples of data ignored through Baldrige analysis. Rather than releasing
the imagination in classrooms and acknowledging the benefits of an
arts-enriched curriculum, Baldrige narrows the vision, but it does so covertly
- never explicitly disallowing such documentation, but in establishing a
structure that makes non-comparative data inconsequential to the reporting
process.
While self-assessments are a critical
part of the Baldrige quest for learning-centered education, it is unclear how
these self-assessments can be incorporated into the final report. Interest in
individual student needs and learning styles is expressed, but
"results" are the focus of the Board of Examiners and these results
have very limited forms of representation. Qualitative methods could better
present information relating to these issues, and a detailed, narrative format
would be more useful in describing individual student work and progress. These
discrepancies between the Baldrige process and the aesthetic viewpoint cannot
be reconciled.
In considering the Baldrige emphasis on
continuous improvement and organizational learning, the business world's
structure is again imposed on the educational setting. While it may seem
perfectly logical to generate a collection of quantitative measures and
indicators from year to year and compare them to determine improvement, further
investigation indicates serious flaws in this process. Corporations may be able
to control variables and streamline their processes to manufacture a product
more efficiently. Classrooms, as Greene describes, are full of unique
individuals who come and go with increasing frequency. In some schools, rosters
change on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Teachers are also bombarded with a
plethora of ever-changing regulations and expectations. In this type of
environment, drafting a set of performance indicators that will demonstrate
continuous improvement makes little sense.
In Washington Elementary’s case, their
student population was highly transient and the state’s once a year achievement
tests, once scored and returned, provided data for only about half of the
students currently enrolled; the other half of the student body had moved on by
that time. This reality, coupled with the fact that twenty percent of the
students who took the test had only been at Washington Elementary for less than
a month, left the teachers feeling that the test results could not possibly
accurately reflect what teaching and learning had taken place at Washington.
The individualized essential skills assessment records that the teachers had
developed were able to provide them with student achievement data that they
could use to guide instruction on a daily basis. These records were evidence of
student progress and learning, but not acceptable “comparative data” to
determine school improvement by Baldrige standards.
Teachers also noted, because Washington
Elementary practiced inclusion, a high percentage of students in certain
classes were identified as special education students with multiple needs and
various abilities. Mrs. Driver noted that comparing the standardized test
scores of her fifth grade class from last year to the fifth grade class of this
year was deceptive. Last year’s fifth grade class had a special education
population of forty-five percent. This year’s class had only fifteen percent.
Again, the data required to demonstrate continuous improvement did not tell the
whole story, and teachers resented this.
In the principal’s words,
The people here, use all of their own
personal contacts, personal resources to help the kids here. Whether it be
finding that doctor who can help a child who has a need. Finding an
organization . . . I mean individuals will take that on their own, you know,
and try to contact . . . . It’s not a formal process, there’s nothing written
down. There are no guidelines. But everybody works to what is best for that
child.”[3]
Because, “It’s not a formal process” and “nothing is written
down”, the Baldrige process necessarily ignores this type of powerful school
dynamic.
Again the principal notes,
I think that teachers have to be
concerned about the whole child. Because if you’re just focusing on the
academic, then the learning alone, you’ll become extremely frustrated because
there’s going to be ups and downs with the children learning. There are going
to be times when they don’t bring homework back. It’s not what you ideally want
to have. And it’s not just one or two. I mean it could be half the class that
doesn’t get it done because of something that’s happened at home. So it needs
to be a person who can look at the entire child to consider everything that’s
going on with that child and know when the appropriate time to act is[4]…
Embracing
the complexity of the classroom from an aesthetic perspective allows teachers
and students to tackle the barriers they face with a spirit of imagination.
Setting goals through dreaming of the possibilities, and celebrating the
special strengths of each student and teacher, open doors to improvement that
may not be readily quantifiable, but are, most certainly, valuable.
The Baldrige concept of Design Quality
and Prevention also is problematic when considering the variables present in
the classroom. Those adopting the aesthetic perspective of Eisner and Greene
might accept the practice of formative assessment, continually attending to the
progress of individual students. However, they would dismiss the notion of
striving toward an effective design of instruction that would consistently
yield "cookie cutter" results. Such a quest, again, perpetuates a
factory-model of education that disregards the unique characteristics of
students and teachers, and restricts an imaginative approach. It is also
inconsistent with current research on how people actually learn.
The most recent findings of the United
States National Research Council concerning teaching and learning support the
need for fluidity, rather than rigidity, in creating optimal learning
environments (Bransford,
Brown et al., 2000).
Teachers need to spend time identifying students’ preconceptions in order to
address gaps and misunderstandings related to concepts being taught. Productive
learning moves toward understanding rather than concentrating on factual
information. Informal, formative assessments conducted regularly by teachers are
critical in ensuring that the process of real learning takes place. The
Baldrige model, as realized at Washington Elementary, did not support these
directives.
Finally, the Core Concept of Management
by Fact is at odds with an aesthetic perspective of education. The idea of
collecting information about how one teaches or how students are learning is
not foreign to the aesthetic paradigm, but the criteria used to determine what
constitutes factual data conflicts with the Baldrige model. The Baldrige emphasis
on quantitative data - whether it is categorized as input, environmental, or
performance - excludes all information that can be expressed through narratives
or the arts.
At Washington Elementary, several staff
meetings were spent discussing exactly how to collect and present data on
aspects of the school that seemed to defy quantitative measures. The
“lifeskills” emphasis on characteristics such as “Truth”, “Trust”, and
“Personal Best” were difficult to report in graph-form. Though the front
hallway of the school was lined with “Acts of Kindness” reports of teachers and
students who were demonstrating these qualities, teachers were frustrated
because they could not come up with a way to establish baseline data and charts
for continuous improvement in this domain. The principal mentioned at another
staff meeting that, although service learning was an integral part of the
education at Washington, she had no data to demonstrate its importance. A group
of students and teachers did research the service learning activities and
designed a brochure to showcase them, but whether this work would be acceptable
to include in their final Baldrige documentation for the year was
questionable.
Management by Fact also became a burden
on the teachers and students at Washington Elementary. Constantly constructing
and/or completing surveys that could provide various pools of data was
wearisome. Ending daily class sessions and every committee and staff meeting
with a “plus and delta” evaluation time eventually became mundane. Students
began to groan when teachers asked them to participate in this process. The
classroom system checks that arrived in the teachers’ mailboxes in February
were a source of sarcasm. Considering these reactions, it is difficult to
believe that the data gathered in these settings was totally reliable, yet,
according to the Baldrige model, this data could confidently be presented as
evidence in the quest for quality.
Implications
Those
interested in student success in school, whether using the Baldrige model, or
not, can glean insights from this discussion. What can a school leader do to
encourage school improvement that remains true to the aesthetic vision? S/he
can develop the qualities of an educational connoisseur. Dedicating time to be
in classrooms, observing and participating in learning activities, could be a
first step. Talking with teachers and students about their work and having a
genuine interest in individual accomplishments would be another. Leaders can
take note of the plethora of “anecdotal evidence” of learning amassed by
teachers and students in busy classrooms and use this evidence in evaluating
school success. Once a school leader develops an expertise in assessing what is
occurring in a classroom, s/he can take steps to support teachers in improving
students’ learning.
Leaders that spend time in
classrooms, that talk to teachers about curriculum, and that examine student
work frequently, can make a difference in their schools. These leaders learn to
provide students with the resources they need to continue learning more
effectively, including plentiful experiences in the arts. “Seeing things big”,
these leaders realize they are preparing students for life, not just a job. The
larger focus of nurturing caring, active citizens that have a passion for life
takes priority. Standardized test scores and charts of quantitative data no
longer supercede all other concerns. Our schools need more leaders who are
educational connoisseurs with enlightened eyes.
Reference
Banister, S.I. (2001). Computers in the elementary classroom: teacher and student perspectives. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN.
Bransford,
J. D., A. L. Brown, and Cocking, R. C.,
Eds. (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Fullan, M. and Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: what
works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan 73 (June), 322-349.
Kliebard,
H.M. (1995). The struggle for the
American curriculum (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Meier,
D. (2000). Will standards save public
education? Boston: Beacon Press.
[1] Pseudonym for 270-student elementary
school located in mid-western city of 40,000.
Observations and interviews were conducted at this school for a period
of one year, the fifth year that the school participated in the Baldrige
improvement initiative.
[2] Pseudonym for voluntary state initiative.
[3] Interview notes, pg. 101.
[4] Interview notes, pg. 103, Banister (2001).