An examination of teachers' perceptions of district staff development programs and their relationship to perceptions of district quality management

Abstract

School Improvement and reform seem to be the focus of many educators and business leaders today. Dramatic changes In society make schools very different places than they were even ten or twenty years ago when their critics were in school. The increase of poverty and crime, lack of family support, student alienation, poor student performance, a high dropout rate, a growing number of regulations, race and class discrimination, international competition, and varying roles and expectations for educators all demand new solutions (Fullan, 1991; Rebore, 1991; Neuroth et al., 1992; Sparks & Vaughn, 1994). In addition, people inside the schools sometimes blame each other for the proliferation of these problems (Neuroth et ai., 1992). In many of our nation's approximately 15,000 school districts and 80,000 schools. Independent and state-led reform models are being implemented. Often these reforms focus on only one part of the system rather than on systemwide change (USGAO, 1993). 5. The data for this study were collected in March and April of 1994. 6. Surveys were personally delivered to the districts with return postage provided. Definition of Terms These definitions are presented to provide clarity and understanding of their use in this study: 1. Continuous Quality improvement (CQi) or Total Quality /Management (TQM)-a customer-focused strategic and systematic approach to continuous performance improvement (Vincoli, 1991, p. 28). 2. Inservice-training sessions designed to help teachers learn or improve in a particular content or skill area. 3. Malcolm Baldrige Award-a national award given yearly to honor companies which exemplify quality principles (Schenkat, 1993). 4. Model-(a) a design for learning which embodies a set of assumptions about where knowledge about teaching practice comes from and how teachers acquire or extend their knowledge; (b) a pattern or plan which can be used to guide the design of a staff development program (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989, p. 41). 5. Quality Effectiveness Index-the score derived by dividing the current situation response by the desired situation response on the PQAI, expressed as a decimal. 6. School reform-the process of changing school practices to improve teaching and learning. 7. Staff development or professional development-any school district activity which is intended to prepare staff members for improved performance in their present or future roles in education. These terms are used interchangeably. 8. Staff development program-a school district's plan for designing, delivering, and assessing professional development opportunities over a given period of time. 9. Total systems approach-the practice of looking at interrelationships among all parts of the organization, recognizing that each of the components is affected by all the others.

Factors Impacting Perceived Quality in School Organizations

“…Assessment of quality improvement climate in community colleges . Teachers' perceptions of training programs and their relationships to total district perceptions of quality management (Johnson, 1995). Performance-based pay of chief executive officers and effects upon quality improvement processes in school organizations (Behounek, 1996).…”

“…Staff Development Questionnaire: An instrument developed for the purpose of measuring the perceived quality of staff development activities in an educational organization (Johnson, 1995).…”

“…Literature on quality improvement has mushroomed in the past several years with application for school organizations. Deming often wrote and spoke of "continuous improvement" with the goal of quality, so the term "continuous quality improvement" is frequently used in discussions about school organization improvement, reform, or transformation (Johnson, 1995).…”

“…Staff Development Instrumentation. The District Staff Developmental Questionnaire (Johnson, 1995) was developed by one of the members of the study group (Johnson, 1995) after reviewing staff development literature in the following areas: (1) planning, (2) administrative support, (3) delivery, (4) follow-up, and (5) evaluation. (Wood et al, 1982;Fullan, 1985;Joyce & Showers, 1988;Sparks and Loucks-Horsley, 1989;Senge, 1990;Rebore, 1991;Guskey, 1994;McBride et al, 1994;Sparks & Vaughn, 1994) Orlich, 1983Guskey & Sparks, 1991;Templeman & Peters, 1992;Showers, 1985;Wade, 1985;Bates & Stachowski, 1991;Wood & Thompson, 1993).…”