Effectiveness in Public Education: Models and Aspects of Leadership1
Tibor Baráth
University of Szeged / Hungarian-Netherlands School of Educational Management, Hungary
Introduction
The quality of education, the expenditure of financial and human resources used for obtaining it, and the efficient use of these resources has become a key issue in the educational systems of modern societies. This initiated researches that help us to improve our knowledge about the operation of the system. Furthermore, this question incited the development and practical application of those management techniques with the help of which effectiveness can be extended.
In the ‘80s and ’90s it has become obvious that the extension of the system’s effectiveness essentially can be imagined by the extension of the effectiveness of particular institutes. So the effectiveness of the school’s operation came to the centre with the extension of institutional autonomy in a natural way. In decentralized systems – what the Hungarian system of education also became – one of the fundamental tasks of local and central management is to help effective and economic operation of institutions with the help of unique tools and possibilities of the given level management. On the school level the guarantees for, and to some extent reserves of, effective operation are in the increase of the school’s flexibility, in the co-ordinated planning of the process of learning and instruction, in the application of differentiated procedures for organizing the learning process, and in profiting from the infrastructure.
The appraisal of education’s success and effectiveness has called for the reinterpretation of the managerial profession, and has changed the expectations held of the manager. In this new situation there is an increasing emphasis on the knowledge and ability that is necessary for the manager to promote the harmonization of the organization’s (school’s) goals and the goals of those individuals who are within the organization or connected to it, to promote the effective handling of financial and human resources, to motivate individuals and groups, to supervise the examination and evaluation of individuals, groups and the institution’s work, to ensure a harmonious relationship with the controlling power and with the local society; to help the formation of the school’s system of aims and image, considering the expectations of the clients as well, and so on. Accordingly, the manager’s concept of‘effectiveness’, the ability to reach an effective operation, can considerably influence the development of a given organization (Halász, 1994).
Goals and Theoretical Background of the Research
The primary aim of the research project being reported here was to explore the characteristics of thinking about effectiveness and this way contribute to the clarification of the concept. To meet this goal we wanted to learn about the ideas of teachers and school managers concerning effectiveness, about the features of school effectiveness they consider characteristic, about the indexes used for characterizing success and effectiveness and about the factors influencing effectiveness as well. So, on the one hand, our approach is inductive concept-making, based on the research about organizational effectiveness. At the same time we were striving to define some of the criteria of school success and effectiveness and to examine organizational effectiveness according to these.
In this report we examine the research results on the basis of how people who work in educational organizations think about success and effectiveness. We examine the characteristics of these conceptions, which indicators characterize success and what tools influence it. We present data on how teachers and school managers judge the possible indices of success and the factors and tools influencing success. We examine the self-appraisal of managers and how teachers judge managerial behaviour.
The theoretical background of the research is the Competing Values Framework, which is based on the basic values that greatly determine the effective functioning of organizations.
The effectiveness of organizations is a problem that theoretical and empirical experts, managers and members of organizations have all been concerned about for a long time (Cameron-Whetten, 1983). The following questions arise in connection with this problem.
- When could be said about an organization that it’s functioning is effective?
- What kind of activity and behaviour is expected from it’s members and managers to reach an effective functioning?
- Can the terms‘success’ and‘effectiveness’ be used as synonyms2?
It may be that we get different answers to the questions in different organizations. A research-developer group may think differently about punctual appearance at the workplace, than, let’s say, the army would. In one organization, following the rules is a fundamental demand – for example in religious communities – while in another organization smaller offences might be legitimated later by the obtained result. (For example a successful market decision at a given firm, where the decision maker exceeds his/her authority). These particular examples refer to the fact that judging effectiveness depends basically on the considerations applied during the analyses.
Concerning how school organizations differ from other – e.g. economic – organizations, opinions differ even within public education. Today such phenomena as the decreasing number of students and the narrowing of resources compel these organizations to operate in ways similar to that of the competitive sector. The consequences of this appear the increasing emphasis on marketing and the communication of the institution’s policy toward the local society. The adaptation to the requirements of the single market is extended to education (Balázs-Ivanics, 1998). Consequently, public education should function more and more in a way that makes the free movement of services possible – this tendency is apparent in the development of the European Union. Among the theoreticians in the research into education management there is a serious debate about whether or to what extent the educational context modifies the principles of the theory of organization and management science. Both opinions have influential leaders (Bush, 1995). In our opinion, although public education differs from other activities in some respects, this does not mean that the approach of the theory of organization must be rejected. On the other hand, organizations in the competitive and service sectors are displaying features similar to the characteristics that define the operation of educational organizations (such as the growing importance of the human factor and the individual approach, the use of organizational devices that modify market conditions etc.). The successful application of the Competing Values Framework in non-profit sectors (e.g. the health-care system) also supports our viewpoint about the applicability of this model to the educational system.
In the Competing Values Framework (CVF), developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) researchers describe the effectiveness of organizations along two dimensions.
The first dimension is the internal-external orientation, which varies from the well-being and development of individuals within the organization to the well-being and development of the organization as a whole. The second dimension reflects the attitude of the organization toward change, the characteristics of internal organization, that ranges from structures based on control to flexibility. It is also interesting to our research and to what tools and processes and with what results, the organization uses to meet it’s fundamental values and goal.
The researchers who developed the model examined the characteristics of the four basic models (types) and found that quality does not relate significantly to any of the basic models, while it is part of all of them. This led the researchers to the conclusion that quality should be a central criteria standing in the centre of the whole model (Quinn-Rohrbaugh, 1983).
According to the approach of Quinn and Rohrbaugh the question is not „which of the four types or basic models belonging to the Competing Values Framework is equal with the given organization?”, but rather „to what extent are the characteristics of these four types recognizable and present in the given organization?” These types – together with manager roles related to them – are presented in the following section.
- The Human Relations Model puts the greatest emphases on flexible operation and internal relationships. During the operation of the organization, cohesion and morale are those tools which most ensure the result, the development of human resources. The model provides the members of the organization with the possibility of individual development and good interpersonal relationships. In this model, the manager is a facilitator and mentor. In the facilitator role the manager fosters collective effort, builds cohesion and teamwork and manages interpersonal conflict. In this role the manager is process-oriented, his/her main task being the building of teamwork. As a mentor his/her main task is the development of individuals in a helpful way.
- In the Open Systems Model flexibility and willingness to act – the tools, with the help of which the organization meets its goals of obtaining resources, external support and expansion – also have an even greater importance. The members of this type of organization have a wide scope and a great freedom in organizing their work, usually with an external support attached. But all these go with uncertainty and the pressure of taking risks and responsibility. In this model the manager is an innovator and broker. As an innovator his/her main task is to facilitate adaptation and change. As a broker he/she works mainly on the external acceptance of the organization.
- The aim of the Rational Goal Model is high productivity and economical operation, towards which it uses planning and goal-setting as tools. In this model individual goals are directed by organizational goals. High performance is required, which is requited with appreciation by the well co-ordinated management. The manager is a director and a producer in this system. As a director he/she clarifies expectations through processes such as planning and goal setting. As a producer the manager is task-oriented and work focused.
- Finally, in the model of Internal Process stability and monitoring have a decisive role. This model is served mainly by the well-organized information system and communication as tools. It provides clear task setting, strict rules and at the same time predictability and safety for the members of the organization. In this case the manager has the role of monitor and co-ordinator. During monitoring the manager is expected to know what is going on in the unit, to see if people are complying with the rules and to see if the unit is meeting its quotas. As a co-ordinator the manager maintains the structure and flow of the system (Quinn et al., 1996, pp. 14-19.) The connections of the basic models and the roles and competencies of managers are shown on Figure 1.
Figure 1. – The competencies and the leadership roles in the competing values framework.
These four models do not appear exclusively in any organization. However, there are several examples when the characteristics of one model become dominant in an organization – in educational organizations as well. It does not seem unnatural that most élite city schools are characterized by the features of the Open Systems model. These schools are characterized by the precise setting of objectives and achievement-centeredness. They are managed with a firm hand, both students and teachers are pressed to strive for the best possible results (subject results, competitions, further studies, language exams). In the case of schools stability, predictability and control are often manifested as order, discipline and traditionalism. Here it is essential to follow the rules and fit in with the proper level of hierarchy. On this basis it is not difficult to recognize the traditional Hungarian school. On the other hand, features such as strong informal relations, the appreciation of individuals, the emphasis put on the whole personality instead of on cognitive development, characterize schools organized on the basis of alternative pedagogies (e.g. Waldorf, Freinet, Montessori etc.). Conflicts are talked out here, and although there are official forums, interpersonal relationships are dominant. Since everyone is involved in this, these schools are characterized by strong cohesion and the feeling of belonging together. In the Hungarian school system some vocational institutes (e.g. schools taking part in the World Bank programme) seem to be close to the Open Systems model. Due to the nature of vocational training these schools have extended relations not only in the educational system, but with the competitive and service sector as well. For these schools obtaining support, as well as taking risk, is being appraised. The characteristics of these schools’ operation are often closer to the forms of organizational operation than to the characteristics of traditional educational institutes.
Results in the four models or types can be seen as of primary value. It is easily discernible that the values presented in the four models are the complements of one another in many cases, and at other cases they are counterpoints: this is where the name Competing Values Framework comes from. One of the fundamental values of the Human Relations Model is flexibility: that connects it to the Open Systems Model. At the same time, considering its orientation (the way it concentrates on internal processes) and its relationship to structure and monitoring (since it is flexible) it is counterpoint of the Rational Goal Model. Similarly, the Open Systems Model, with its orientation towards the external environment and its flexibility, is a counterpoint of the Internal Process Model that is built on strong hierarchy, strict monitoring and concentrates upon relationships within the organization. At the same time, with its sensibility and openness to environment, it is connected to the Rational Goals Model. This latter one is related to Internal Process Model by the similar approach to control, while the Internal Process Model with its extroversion has a common system of values with the Human Relations Model (Quinn-Rohrbaugh, 1983). So the system of effectiveness formed by the four models is based on the harmonized attraction and repulsion of the components.
Figure 2. – Negative zone in organizational effectiveness. Source: Quinn et al. (1996), p. 21.
Figure 2 demonstrates well how unclear organizational values (internal negative zone), the dynamic balance of the clear values (positive zone) and an extreme success of a value very important in respect to the operation of the organization (external negative zone) influence the operation of the organization, and it’s effectiveness (Quinn et al., 1996, pp. 21.).
The interpretation of the terms ‘success’ and ‘effectiveness’ is an important determinant of the model’s conceptual framework. Effectiveness has different possible interpretations. According to the approach of the Competing Values Framework effectiveness is a question of value choice. This approach strives at exploring individual thinking, opinions, willingness to act rather than exploring objective data. The importance of this approach is that the way individuals work within an organization (e.g. a school) is determined by their scale of values, their individual motivations and ambitions. These, aggregated on the institutional level, determine the quality of the institute’s operation.
On the other hand, the statistical criteria of effectiveness and success, such as school results, absenteeism, the amount of money spent on professional matters per person, etc., can be provided or defined. This latter approach provides an opportunity to compare different organizations (schools, in this case) on the basis of given criteria – and to explore the factors influencing the quality of operation.
In the following sections we present a possible interpretation system of effectiveness and success using this second approach, which formed the basis of the school questionnaire of the research presented in this study. When defining indicators, we differentiate between the indicators of success and effectiveness. According to our approach, the former reflects the school’s performance, the result of its work, while the later serves as the extent of expenditure (financial, time, etc.) essential to obtain a result. The categories of effectiveness, the indexes of these categories, and the indicators which makes evaluation possible were defined as follows. Three categories of success were defined: the educational activity and socialization effectiveness of the school, and how well-known and recognized it is in its surroundings3. These indexes were defined on the basis of the research mentioned previously. Thus there is a dual approach to the success of schools.
Concerning the indicators of effectiveness, on the basis of criteria defined for this purpose we can judge the kinds of expenditure needed for the school to reach the given result. It is essential to interpret the expenditures in a broad sense, so the allocation of financial and human resources and the amount of time are also examined4. So, in accordance with international practice, it is essential to examine the student/teacher rate (S/T), the average number of classes and learning groups and the costs of instruction per person. Essentially, these criteria can be applied also when we want to judge the effectiveness of school against the fulfilment of its goals, because the extent of effectiveness is the extent of (financial, human and technical) resources invested in producing the results.
The exploration along the three criteria is defined on the basis of data coming from national (international) researches. In this case the comparison is less sensitive to the particular state of the school and achievement thresholds defined locally and found acceptable in connection with the indicators (resulting from the operationalization of the categories). If the comparison happens within the local system or compared to the school (to itself), then institutional goals defined with regard to the given criteria have a defining importance in the educational program of the institution. In this case, the meeting of goals and its extent form the basis of the comparison and judgement.
Introduction of the Sample and the Questionnaires
Primary and secondary schools took part in the research. In case of primary schools the sample was formed on the basis of the number of inhabitants living in the particular settlement: (1) village with less than 2.500 citizen; (2) village with more than 2.500 citizen; (3) town with less than 35.000 citizen (4) town with 35.000-225.000 citizen; (5) Budapest. When choosing the secondary schools we considered their instructional goals. In the sample the proportion of students from the academic stream of education, from Vocational Secondary Schools and from Trade Schools were 40-40-20%. Finally, the effectiveness research was performed on a sample containing 123 institutions. (The distribution of schools providing data is shown in Appendix 1.
Based on data obtained from schools, questionnaires were sent to 4906 teachers and 346 managers5: 2562 (52.2%) and 263 (76%) questionnaires arrived back. The considerably higher proportion in the case of managers can be explained by their higher interest in taking part in researches focused on schools, derived from their position, mainly to get information about the institution they manage. (The distribution of questionnaires arrived back by school types is shown in Appendix 2.
The recording of data was done with the help of teams in County Educational Institutes and the Capital’s Educational Institute, who visited the schools at a previously agreed time and arranged for teachers and managers to fill in the questionnaires in. The completion of the questionnaires was voluntary and anonymous.
The criteria of school effectiveness and success was measured with the help of the school questionnaire. It’s content was created mainly according to the already mentioned research done in 1996 by the National Institute of Public, taking into consideration the system and school level process indexes applied in the project of OECD INES (Scheerens, 1995).
The exploration of thinking about effectiveness was intended by two questionnaires (Teachers’ and Managers’) differing from each other only in one respect. The content of these questionnaires was created partly on the basis of national climate researches and partly on the basis of the‘Focus’ questionnaire developed within an international comparative research built on the theory of Competing Values Framework. The proportion of those completing these questionnaires was reasonably higher than the proportion of those filling in the school questionnaire (we have data from 104 institutions from the 123, 84.6%): the structures of the two questionnaires are shown in Appendix 3 and 4.
In the first part of the questionnaire we asked teachers and managers to decide the extent to which they consider the provided statements true to their school. Opinions were presented on a five point scale: 1: not characteristic at all to 5: fully characteristic6. Statements were worded referring to the ten organizational characteristics appropriate to depict the school as an organization (decision making; information system, openness, external relations; organization of the work; appraisal; innovation; aims; communication; problem solving, handling of conflicts; management, climate)7. In Part 2 of the questionnaire we asked the participants not only for the evaluation of their own school, but for the evaluation of the indexes themselves<$fSome examples of the applied indices are: school results at the end of term, further education indices, parents' satisfaction, reputation of the school, popularity of the school, etc.>; and for the evaluation of tools providing an effect on school effectiveness8. In this part were statements referring to the ideal school, and we also asked participants to rate these answers. Finally, in the last part, teachers gave their opinion about statements referring to the manager, and the extent to which they found these statements characteristic. The managers’ questionnaire differs from the teachers’ one only in that the five-point scale placement of these statements served the self-appraisal of managers in this case
<$fE.g. Our manager/You is/are an influential representative of the school; is/are outcome-centred; analyse(s) the work of his/her/your colleagues, etc.>
In the first part of the questionnaire, statements referring to ideal school and to the (self)-appraisal of mangers are based on the Competing Values Framework. This means that these statements were conceptualized on the basis of four the models of the Competing Values Framework presented above.
The Main Results of the Research
The tools of measurement which were introduced offer many possibilities for analysis during the processing of data: the analysis and comparison of individual questionnaires, the characteristics of the opinions provided by participant groups (teachers, managers), the examination of schools by aggregating the opinions of employees working in the given schools, etc.
Because of length limits, we can deal here only with a part of the proposed analysis possibilities, namely with the main characteristics (Baráth, 1997).
The applicability of the Competing Values Framework was tested by statistical probes and multivariate analysis. The factor and cluster analyses conducted on the Teachers’ and Managers’ questionnaire confirm the reliability of the tools of measurement on the one hand, and verify the validity of the Competing Values Framework on the other hand. In other words, the effectiveness paradigms of the CVF referring to organizations exist in the thinking of Hungarian teachers and school managers, so the model is suitable for the exploration and characterization of the way of thinking.
The factor analysis of the first part of the Teachers’ and Managers’ questionnaire shows that the models in CVF are more or less separate from each other according to the opinions of teachers and managers. The structure of factors based on the answers conveys the system of the Competing Values Framework.
The factor analysis completed on the section of part two dealing with the (self)appraisal of managers reflects the applicability of CVF even more firmly. Managerial competencies essential to successful management besides organizational effectiveness were shown on Figure 1. These competencies can be seen almost as clearly in the sample of managers, and some of its characterizing features are appearing in the sample of teachers as well.
The Opinion of Teachers and Managers about Success and Effectiveness
The characteristics of organizational concepts and thinking about effectiveness can be summarized as follows. The first part of the Teachers’ and Managers’ questionnaires contained 85 statements in random order referring to the four models. The particular models were characterized by 19 - 25 statements with the help of the ten organizational features mentioned previously. The statements were evaluated by the participants on a five-point scale. The means of statements referring to a given model and the differences between these means show the differences between the given models, based on the opinions.
Table 1
– The means of the basic models based on teachers’ and managers’ opinions
| Model
| Teachers
| Managers |
|
| Mean
| Stand. dev.
| Mean
| Stand. dev. |
| Human relations
| 3.39
| 0.34
| 3.66
| 0.47 |
| Internal process
| 3.35
| 0.39
| 3.32
| 0.44 |
| Rational goal
| 3.52
| 0.32
| 3.75
| 0.38 |
| Open system
| 3.49
| 0.35
| 3.64
| 0.39 |
It can be seen that teachers’ opinions show less deviation than the managers’ do. According to the mean of statements characterizing the models, teachers consider the Rational goal model the most characteristic to their school, indicated by the slightly higher and the smallest dispersion of the answers. It probably is not an exaggeration to suppose that this distribution of opinions can be connected to the strong achievement-centredness of the Hungarian Education System, which manifests mainly in the providing of knowledge. The smallest mean and highest dispersion of the Internal process model refers to the moving away from traditional school concept that is built on hierarchy.
The managers also consider the Rational goal model the most characteristic of their schools. At the same time, the moving away form the Internal process model is more sharply visible in the case of managers, indicated by the low mean obtained for this model. At the same time, the fact, that the mean of Human relations and Open systems models are also high show that the characteristics of these models are clearly present in Hungarian schools. To be more precise, connection to environment, adaptation, and the climate and the supporting of individual effort and ambitions in the organization, became important. All these indicate a paradigm shift in management.
Similar conclusions can be drawn if we examine those statements (characteristics) that teachers and managers consider the most or the least characteristic of their schools. If the mean of a statement was under 3, we considered it less characteristic, and if it was above 4, we considered it strongly characteristic. In case of teachers there were 9 statements in the first group and 4 ones in the second group. In case of managers there were 8 statements in the first, and 15 statements in the second group. This shows that managers found nearly four times as many statements strongly characteristic of their school than did their teacher colleagues. The 15 statements were not equally distributed among the four models. There were 6 statements referring to the Open systems model, 4 were referring to the Rational goal, 4 to the Human relations model, and only one was referring to the Internal process model.
So, according to the opinion of teachers and managers it seems that there has been a considerable change in Hungarian schools in the last few years, the consequences of which appeared in the basic values of school organizations. From an organizational perspective the strong feature of this change is that schools moved away from the traditional school concept that is built upon strong hierarchy, order and discipline. But in the case of teachers this concept was not replaced by another one. The case of the managers is different. There was some kind of a paradigm shift in their thinking. The characterizing features of this can be connected to the Open systems and to the Human relations models. We can say in general, that teachers judged their schools along greater extremes – concerning the statements listed in the first part of the questionnaire and (where the extent to which a given statement is characteristic meant the evaluation of the school at the same time) have a less positive picture about their institution and it’s operation than managers have.
The appraisal and self-appraisal of managers was an important part of the research. In this part of the teachers’ questionnaire we asked participants to judge – on the five-point scale applied before – the extent they find the given statements characteristic of their manager. In the managers’ questionnaire we asked participant for self-appraisal, with the help of the same statements. The statements were worded on the basis of the four models of CVF. We wanted to learn with the help of these statements, whether is there a model dominantly defining the activity and behaviour of managers. We also wanted to know what similarities and differences there were between the opinions of teachers and managers.
Table 2
–
The means of managers’ (self)appraise and teachers’ appraisal of managers
| Model
| Teachers
| Managers |
|
| Mean
| Stand. dev.
| Mean
| Stand. dev. |
| Human relations
| 3.58
| 0.11
| 4.09
| 0.13 |
| Internal process
| 3.52
| 0.26
| 3.70
| 0.32 |
| Rational goal
| 3.74
| 0.17
| 3.87
| 0.18 |
| Open system
| 3.73
| 0.28
| 3.60
| 0.24 |
Similar to the statements in Part 1, here are also great differences between the opinions of teachers and managers. While managers think the characteristics of the Human relations model have a great importance in their activity (creating a good climate, empathy, attention, incentives of teachers, etc.) – the mean in case of the four models reflect this, and the low dispersion reflects the coherence of opinions -while teachers gave the second lowest score to this model, with a small dispersion also. All these refer to the fact that there is a considerable difference between the self-appraisal of managers and teachers’ appraisal of managers when we are talking about building teams and the operation of personal relations. Probably a communication problem lies behind all these. It could be that managers consider their efforts toward building consensus, solving personal problems and encouraging teachers, greater than their colleagues see or recognize. The exploration of reasons would lead us far: we state only one hypothesis in connection with this: it is probable that teachers do not know thoroughly enough those conditions and constraints that determine the work and activity of managers, so the expectations toward managers and the realities of the position of managers can easily separate from each other.
Examining the differences between the models it is surprising at first sight that teachers valued more the characteristics of the Open systems model in the activity of managers than did the managers themselves. The reason for this may be that teachers often perceive the temporary absence of leaders (mainly the absence of the manager, which is necessary for obtaining additional financial support for the school or building external relations) important for the school’s development. Managers may feel that apart from or besides this, they can pay the right amount of attention to the internal affairs of the school. This can also be an explanation of the different judgement of managerial activities and characteristics belonging to the Human relations model. Just as in case of the first 85 statements, the Internal process model also obtained the lowest value from both from teachers and managers. This leads us to conclude that both of the groups find the managerial style built on strict hierarchy less effective than the managerial styles of other models.
In the second part of the questionnaire, among other things, we asked teachers to evaluate the extent to which the viewpoints given in the questionnaire were proper for judging of the effectiveness of instruction. We also asked them to give their opinion about factors (circumstances) influencing the quality and success of instruction.
Table 3 shows how teachers and managers think about the applicability of the given success indexes<$fHereafter in parenthesis is the number of those who gave answers: the first is the number of teachers, the second is the number of managers.>. We can state on the basis of these data that the opinion of teachers and managers are close to each other. An outstandingly important index of the success of school operation is students’ future success after finishing school (4,32; 4,43). Literature considers this the category of long-term effect or result<$fSee for example researches done by the OECD and the serial Education at a Glance where these researches are presented.>. This index is followed by the reputation and popularity of school (3,86; 3,95), further education indexes (3,91; 3,82), disciplined work (3,84; 3,89) and results of academic competitions (3,80; 3,71). The least important indexes of the list containing 12 elements are dropping out of students from school (2,92; 3,10), satisfaction of the maintainer (3,01; 3,15) and the results of national surveys (3,27; 3,48).
The analysis of the means leads us to many conclusions. The values of students’ future success show that this is an index of outstanding importance. However, this is the index for the analysis and evaluation of which there is no suitable information for schools, there is no suitable collection of data that could support this. At the same time, the results of national surveys – that are available and could make the comparison of the achievements of schools and their groups possible – are considered less suitable for the reflection of success. We should also mention that the value attached to the satisfaction of the maintainer is very low. This is probably connected with the fact, that according to the Education Act although the evaluation of the professional work of schools is (also) the task of the maintainers, this task is often and in several places fulfilled only partly9. This could be traced back partly to their lack of competency. Some schools may think that the judgement of the maintainer is less important from professional perspectives, and that (as the already-mentioned research done for the World Bank indicated), the success of school does not provide an effect on financing.
It is likely that due to the greater demand on quality in public education, and to the maintainers’ increasing interest in the institutes’ accountability, the measuring and evaluation of success will gain increasing importance on the level of the schools as well. This – the appraisal and self-appraisal of schools – may be one of the greatest challenges for the managers of schools in the near future.
Table 3
–
The judgement of indexes reflecting the success of instruction (teachers and managers)
| No
| Statements
Indexes reflecting the success of schools
| Teachers
| Managers |
|
|
| N
| Mean
| St.dev.
| N
| Mean
| St.dev. |
| 1
| School results at the end of the academic year
| 2541
| 3.67
| 0.70
| 261
| 3.72
| 0.,63 |
| 2
| Indexes of further studies
| 2531
| 3.91
| 0.79
| 263
| 3.82
| 0.74 |
| 3
| Results of national surveys
| 2489
| 3.28
| 0.90
| 262
| 3.39
| 0.82 |
| 4
| Disciplined work
| 2525
| 3.84
| 0.84
| 257
| 3.89
| 0.69 |
| 5
| Results of academic competitions
2538
| 3.80
| 0.85
| 262
| 3.71
| 0.79 |
| 6
| Future success of the students
| 2534
| 4.32
| 0.75
| 263
| 4.43
| 0.66 |
| 7
| Satisfaction of parents with the school
| 2533
| 3.39
| 0.84
| 263
| 3.56
| 0.73 |
| 8
| Satisfaction of students with the school
| 2531
| 3.50
| 0.85
| 263
| 3.58
| 0.77 |
| 9
| Satisfaction of maintainer with the school
| 2511
| 3.01
| 0.99
| 260
| 3.15
| 0.82 |
| 10
| Dropping out of students at school
| 2492
| 2.92
| 1.02
| 261
| 3.10
| 0.91 |
| 11
| Good reputation & popularity of the school
| 2526
| 3.86
| 0.88
| 261
| 3.95
| 0.75 |
| 12
| The new system of examinations
| 2289
| 3.27
| 0.99
| 247
| 3.48
| 0.91 |
As for indicators reflecting school success, in the case of factors influencing the quality of education the opinion of teachers and managers is similar (Table 4). According to this, the size of school and the number of students have a slight influencing power (2,97; 2,0), the effect of the number of students in a class (3,67; 3,51) and the effect of the financial situation of school (3,80; 3,63) provided on the quality of school are more than average. Both groups attribute an outstanding importance to the professional background of teachers (4,41; 4,45), followed by the abilities of students (4,20; 4,13). The means related to the pedagogical programme and the methods applied are also high.
It therefore can be seen that in several ways the managers’ opinions (and the teachers’ ones as well) are in accordance with the results of international researches about the success of schools. Both managers and teachers are aware of the factors most influencing. Beyond the evaluation of institutions mentioned previously, the new teacher competencies necessary for the successful operation and the contribution to the teaching-learning process are the important tasks for the management, especially for the manager of the schools. This emphasises the importance of planning the teachers’ professional careers at the institutional level and the harmonization of individual professional ambitions and the competencies necessary for reaching the institutional (organizational) goals, in the further professional training of teachers, the planning of which is the managers’ responsibility. The improvement of teachers’ competence in measuring and improving students’ abilities and may have a special importance.
It’s a little surprising that the mean referring to the social background of students can only be found in the middle of the list. This differs from the research that suggest the outstanding importance of these factors (Coleman, 1966; Jencks, 1972; Sáska, 1998; Vári, 99-103)10. The belief in the defining importance of splitting the class into groups is still living. In connection with this – referring to research results again – we can state that this cannot be considered evidence, and works only in some extreme cases or in some subjects and in some domains that needs practice (Scheerens, 1992, p. 36). However, in that case, if the smaller number of students goes with active study and differentiated development, etc., the effect provided on success can be justified.
Table 4
–
The judgement of factors defining the quality of education (teachers, managers)
| No
| Statements
Factors defining the quality of education
| Teachers
| Managers |
|
|
| N
| Mean
| Spread
| N
| Mean
| Spread |
| 1
| Number of students in the school
| 2523
| 2.97
| 1.10
| 260
| 2.90
| 1.08 |
| 2
| Number of students in one class
| 2531
| 3.67
| 0.90
| 260
| 4.04
| 0.68 |
| 3
| The opportunity to teach in split groups
| 2521
| 4.06
| 0.81
| 260
| 4.04
| 0.68 |
| 4
| The social background of students
| 2530
| 3.79
| 0.82
| 261
| 3.82
| 0.70 |
| 5
| The abilities of students
| 2531
| 4.20
| 0.66
| 261
| 4.13
| 0.65 |
| 6
| Changes in the financial situation of the school
| 2528
| 3.80
| 0.80
| 261
| 3.63
| 0.80 |
| 7
| The quality of school leadership
| 2524
| 3.93
| 0.77
| 261
| 3.95
| 0.64 |
| 8
| The professional background of teachers
| 2530
| 4.41
| 0.62
| 261
| 4.45
| 0.,54 |
| 9
| A good pedagogical programme
| 2518
| 4.10
| 0.75
| 260
| 4.11
| 0.69 |
In this part of the present study we finally overview the tools influencing the success of education. Looking at the list that contains 15 elements we can state that the opinions of teachers and managers are similar here as well. Furthermore, tools mentioned in connection with success were considered quite or very important by the participants. Tools connected to teaching and organizing teaching – activating, motivating, differentiating – can be said to have an outstanding importance. At the end of the list we find the appraisal of teachers, the evaluation of school leadership and the school as an organization. This kind of judgement of evaluation is not necessarily surprising because there fewer tools, methods and experiences at our disposal than, for example, in the domain of evaluating students or organizing the process of teaching. The statistics in connection with the evaluation of tools can be found in Table 5.
Table 5The judgement of tools influencing the success of education (teachers, managers)
| No
| Statements
Tools influencing the success of schools
| Teachers
| Managers |
|
|
| N
| Mean
| Spread
| N
| Mean
| Spread |
| 1
| Teaching accommodated to the needs of students and their groups
| 2522
| 4.17
| 0.65
| 262
| 4.21
| 0.59 |
| 2
| Time devoted to active learning during the lesson (time on task)
| 2522
| 4.15
| 0.66
| 262
| 4.14
| 0.60 |
| 3
| Differentiated activities
| 2529
| 4.09
| 0.71
| 261
| 4.11
| 0.61 |
| 4
| Detailed planning of the individual lessons and bigger teaching units
| 2525
| 3.96
| 0.75
| 260
| 4.07
| 0.69 |
| 5
| Regular evaluation of the students
| 2532
| 4.17
| 0.66
| 262
| 4.27
| 0.60 |
| 6
| Regular checking of students’ discipline
| 2531
| 4.01
| 0.76
| 262
| 3.90
| 0.66 |
| 7
| Motivating the students
| 2531
| 4.37
| 0.65
| 262
| 4.42
| 0.56 |
| 8
| Regular checking of the teachers’ work discipline
| 2526
| 3.56
| 0.90
| 262
| 3.64
| 0.72 |
| 9
| Evaluation of the teachers’ professional achievement
| 2519
| 3.74
| 0.83
| 261
| 3.89
| 0.65 |
| 10
| Financial incentives for teachers
| 2522
| 3.89
| 0.98
| 260
| 3.71
| 0.95 |
| 11
| Further professional training for teachers
| 2525
| 3.87
| 0.85
| 262
| 3.86
| 0.76 |
| 12
| External evaluation of the work of the school
| 2515
| 3.35
| 0.82
| 261
| 3.53
| 0.73 |
| 13
| Self-evaluation of the school
| 2520
| 3.70
| 0.78
| 259
| 3.87
| 0.61 |
| 14
| Evaluation of the work of the school leadership
| 2511
| 3.49
| 0.85
| 257
| 3.61
| 0.70 |
| 15
| Improving the financial situation of the school
| 2517
| 4.04
| 0.81
| 260
| 3.89
| 0.77 |
In summary we can state that teachers and managers have a similar concept of indexes for judging the success of education, and methods and tools influencing success at school. A great importance can be attributed to that clear vision that characterizes the opinions of the already mentioned groups: from the point of view of educational effectiveness the professional achievements of teachers, the motivation of students, differentiated activities and the regular evaluation of students are identified as of key importance. All these reflect the fact that teachers and managers have the same opinion, according to which the quality of school is defined within the school. This is supported by the fact that apart from the well-known poor salaries, it is not the financial incentives of teachers that leads the. (This, of course, does not decrease the problem surrounding the low level of salaries).
At the same time we should pay attention to the fact that the factors considered to be the most important (motivating, differentiating, etc.) were not given appropriate emphases in teacher training. So the proper training of teachers can shift to the domain of further professional training.
We have already mentioned, that the (self)appraisal of the school, and the appraisal of teachers and managers, were considered less important by participants as compared to the previous paragraph. This might be connected to the fact that the evaluation of schools has not been systematically developed in public education. There is a lack of modern methods and tools of evaluation and experts who are familiar with the evaluation of an organization and with the evaluation of local educational systems, and who are highly qualified both in theory and practice. Resulting from this, the benefit of evaluation in the improvement of the quality of schools remains hidden. Similar problems can be identified in connection with the appraisal of teachers and managers. The solution of these problems seems to be possible only as a long-term process, with the continuous and gradual improvement of local and institutional evaluation competency.
Summary
Based on our research, the Competing Values Framework that was introduced at the beginning of this study proved to be adequate for the examination of thinking about the success and effectiveness of schools. The analysis proved that this thinking is based on scales of values conceptualized consciously or latently by the school. As for these values, for the managers the basic values of the Open System model and the Human Relations model are the determining ones, while this is less dominant in the case of the teachers. It would be important in the future to follow how educational values and the culture of the school change, since these greatly influence the possibilities of successful operation.
Here we should also emphasize that the managers’ and the teachers’ opinions greatly differ in the respect of the incentive that teachers get or can get from the school leadership. Although the manager is obviously influenced by several factors in providing support for his/her colleagues, managers have to be aware of the fact that teachers judge their work in this field less by their intentions than by the outcomes of it. This is why communication and the knowledge of the real position is important, in order that this relationship should not be loaded by tensions resulting from irrational expectations. We can also conclude that both teachers and managers are aware of the possible indices of successful operation of schools, and the determining factors and tools. In this respect there is no difference between teachers’ and managers’ opinions. At the same time, it can be stated that schools usually cannot undertake the examination of indices considered to be the most important (such as the long-term effects of education, future success of students) since the necessary tools and methods are missing. Also those indexes which make possible the comparison of schools’ results (e.g. national surveys, examination system) are not regarded as important indexes. Here some aloofness can be seen, the reasons of which may be related to the distrust in the procedure, and the fear of a clearer operation of the school. We can observe that in the everyday practice of schools tools that greatly influence success (such as the evaluation and development of students’ skills, active teaching processes etc.) are not used sufficiently. This draws the attention to those areas of school improvement that may gain priority in the future. Here the appraisal and self-appraisal of institutes may be emphasized, as well as the procedures and methods influencing the success of the process of teaching and learning. It can be seen then that the planning of further professional training of teachers at the level of the school, and the harmonization of this with the pedagogical programme, may become of strategic importance in the life of schools.
Finally, it is worth returning to the fact that the analysis proved that thinking about effectiveness is value-dependent. This has a particular importance in case of Hungarian schools, as the law provides them with the possibility and obligation of creating the pedagogical programme. Schools define their aims in these documents, the basis of which could be the value concept and pedagogical philosophy of the institution. On the other hand – with regard to the fact that pedagogical programmes are approved by the maintainer – the program can be considered a‘deal’ between school and maintainer, so it is the basis of school accountability. This makes essential the clear wording of the concept of success – when could the pedagogical programme and it’s defined goals be considered fulfilled? In other words, when is the school successful? Thus the examination of resources used to meet the goals – effectiveness – is also important.
According to the information provided in the first section of the analysis, the Competing Values Framework is appropriate for the exploration of differences in the ways of thinking, as well as for the exploration of attitudes towards managerial roles related to the models. All these could be important, because it could help in making those who work in schools, and especially managers, aware of their concepts of success and effectiveness, and so, improve the quality of operation.
References
Balázs, É and K Ivanics (1998):„Educational Challenges in the Legal Practice of the European Court.” European Mirror, Studies 48.
Baráth, T (1997): „Models of Effectiveness in Public Education” in Budai, Á and L Varga (eds.), Public Education Research. Budapest: Ministry of Education and Culture, and the Educational Committee of the National Academy of Science: 44-85.
Bush, T (1995): Theories of Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Cameron, K S and D A Whetten (1983): Organizational Effectiveness. Orlando: Academic Press.
Coleman, J S et al. (1966): Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Jencks, C et al. (1972): Inequality. New York: Basic Books.
Halász, G and J Lannert (eds.)(1998): Jelentés a magyar közoktatásról 1997. Budapest: Országos Közoktatási Intézet
Halász, G (ed.) (1996): Az oktatás minosége és az önkormányzati oktatásirányítás (The quality of education and local educational administration). Budapest: OKKER.
Halász, G (1994): „Iskolavezetés és vezetoképzés” (School management and management training). Educatio, No. 2.: 269 -281.
Nagy, M (comp. and ed.) (1998): Report. Education in Hungary 1997. Budapest: National Institute of Public Education.
Quinn, R E and J Rohrbaugh (1983): „A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis,” Management Science, 29(3): 363 - 377.
Quinn, R E et al. (1996): Becoming a Master Manager. New York: John Wiley.
Sáska, G (1989): „Minden predesztinált? – A teljesítmény és a képesség társadalmi kötöttségérol” (Is everything predestined? About the social bounds of achievement and ability), Pedagógiai Szemle, No. 12.:1173-1184.
Scheerens, J (1992), Effective Schooling. London: Cassell.
Scheerens, J (1995), „Internationally Comparable Indicators of Educational Programmes and Processes: Identification, Measurement and Interpretation” in Measuring Quality in School. Paris: OECD.
Vári, P (ed.) (1997). Monitor ’95 – A tanulók tudásának felmérése. (Monitor 95 -The survey of students’ knowledge). Budapest: Országos Közoktatási Intézet (National Institute of Public Education): 99 -103.
Appendix 1The distribution of schools taking part in the research of effectiveness considering instructional goals
| Instructional Goal
| N
| % |
| Primary schools
| 74
| 60.2 |
| Gymnasia
| 23
| 18.7 |
| Vocational Institutions
| 26
| 21.3 |
| Totals
| 123
| 100.0 |
Appendix 2
The number and proportion of teachers and managers completing the questionnaire
| Type of School
| Completing Teachers’ Questionnaire
| Completing the Managers’ Questionnaire |
|
| N
| %
| N
| % |
| Primary Schools
| 1430
| 55.8
| 150
| 57.0 |
| Gymnasia
| 505
| 19.7
| 52
| 19.8 |
| Vocational Institutions
| 620
| 24.2
| 58
| 22.1 |
| Missing data
| 7
| 0.3
| 3
| 1.1 |
| Totals
| 2562
| 100.0
| 263
| 100.0 |
Appendix 3
The School Structure of Questionnaire
| Part of the Questionnaire
| Content of the Questionnaire |
| Part 1
| School data: maintainer, school goals, number of grades and classes, characteristics of the educational programme, etc. |
| Part 2
| Students: subjects results, competitions, further education, failure, absence, change in the number of students, etc. |
| Part 3
| Teachers: numbers, number of subject-professionals, fluctuations, etc. |
| Part 4
| Economy: costs of instruction, business, income, checking, etc. |
Appendix 4
The Structure of the Teachers’ and Managers’ questionnaire
| Part of the Questionnaire
| Teachers
| Managers |
| Part 1
| Statements referring to the school system, based on the Competing Values Framework
| Statements referring to the school system, based on the Competing Values Framework |
| Part 2
| What factors influence effectiveness. Perspectives applicable to the judgement of school effectiveness.
Judgement of own school.
The characteristics of an ideal school (CVF)11
The appraisal of the manager (CVF)
| What factors influence effectiveness/ Perspectives applicable to the judgement of school effectiveness.
Judgement of own school.
The characteristics of an ideal school (CVF)
Self appraisal. (CVF) |
| Part 3
| Date of completion.
| Date of completion. |
| Part 4
| Notes and opinions.
| Notes and opinions. |
Top of page
