Principals Perceptions of the Use of Total Quality

Management Concepts for School Improvement in

Mauritius: Leading or Misleading?
Jean Claude Ah-Teck, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
Karen Starr, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia
Abstract: As a small island country, Mauritius is relying on its human capital and innovative hi-tech
industry to ensure future economic viability in the global market. As such, Mauritian education author-
ities are seeking ways to raise educational standards. One idea being canvassed is that Total Quality
Management (TQM) could provide the framework for Mauritian school leaders to deliver imperatives
for change and improvement and to achieve the aim of world-class quality education. This paper
reports the fndings of a research into Mauritian principals current practices in line with TQM tenets
and their perceptions about the usefulness or otherwise of ideas implicit in TQM. The fndings indicate
that whilst principals agree with current progressive notions and thinking compatible with the TQM
philosophy, they have not fully translated them into their practice. The paper identifes challenges and
opportunities worthy of discussion for school improvement in twenty-frst century Mauritius with its
high-tech, world-class ambitions.
Keywords: Quality Education, Total Quality Management (TQM), Educational Leadership, School
Improvement, Mauritius Education System
Introduction
T
HE INCREASINGECONOMICneeds of Mauritius to position itself as an intelli-
gent nation state in the front line of global progress and innovation, increasing pres-
sures to improve the quality of schools, and the shortcomings of the various educa-
tional reforms of the past two decades have prompted education offcials to focus
on school leadership to deliver signifcant change. One idea is that Total Quality Management
(TQM), a leadership and management philosophy used extensively by business enterprises
to compete in a globalised world (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003), could provide the school
leadership framework to achieve the governments often-stated aim of achieving world-
class quality education (Ministry of Education and Human Resources, 2006; Ministry of
Education and Scientifc Research, 2003). Whether this assumption is correct is the focus
of this paper. It reports the fndings of research into Mauritian principals receptivity to the
main ideas inherent in TQM.
TQM embraces tenets that are consistent with much current literature about school im-
provement (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006; Hargreaves and Fink, 2003). Extant research suggests
that TQM has been used to improve the quality of schools in a holistic manner and on a
continuing basis (e.g. Bonsting, 2001; Blankstein, 2004). However, no such research exists
in the Mauritian context.
The International Journal of Learning
Volume 18, Issue 4, 2012, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494
Common Ground, Jean Claude Ah-Teck, Karen Starr, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
Total Quality Management in Education
The philosophy of TQM was developed by Deming and Juran (Deming, 2000; Juran, 1999).
Although TQM was originally intended for industry, Deming argued that his management
principles could equally be applied to the service sector, including education. TQMs strongest
emphases are leadership commitment and support of formal leaders in the quest for quality,
constancy of purpose, quality consciousness, empowerment, continuous improvement and
a systemic approach as a way of organisational life (Mukhopadhyay, 2005). Such ideas are
reinforced by Leithwood et al. (2006) who contend that school leadership should be based
on fexibility, persistent optimism, motivating attitudes and dispositions, commitment and
an understanding of ones actions on the daily lives of others.
De Jager and Nieuwenhuis (2005, p 254) describe the key principles of TQMin education
as leadership, scientifc methods and tools and problem-solving through teamwork. These
three specifc features are linked to form an integrated system that contributes to the organ-
isational climate, [professional learning] and provision of meaningful data with [stakeholder]
service at the centre of it all (see Figure 1). Another important TQMtenet commonly referred
to in the literature is a focus on systemic thinking about the school (e.g. Bonstingl, 2001;
Deming, 2000; Mukhopadhyay, 2005).
Figure 1: Key Principles of TQM in Education (De Jager and Nieuwenhuis, 2005, p 254,
Adapted)
Distributed Leadership
TQMendorses distributed, shared or collective notions of leadership (Gronn, 2000; Mukho-
padhyay, 2005), including an emphasis on teacher leadership (Starr and Oakley, 2008), re-
cognising the importance of collaboration, collective decision-making and teamwork to enable
stakeholders to contribute to the processes of visioning and implementing rather than simply
2
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
accepting the formal leaders personal vision (Bush and Glover, 2003). In particular, prin-
cipals, as formal leaders, have a crucial role in creating genuinely shared leadership partner-
ships with teachers, especially in assisting them to learn and grow professionally (Starr and
Oakley, 2008), empowering them to effect decisions autonomously and recognising them
as leaders in their spheres of infuence (Gronn, 2000). It is not diffcult to see the basis of
the current appeal to the idea of distributed leadership as a form of participatory democracy
(Leithwood et al., 2007).
Focus on the Stakeholder
Akey TQMprinciple is the focus on stakeholders satisfaction through meeting and exceeding
their needs and expectations (Sallis, 2002), based on the principle that the stakeholder is the
supreme judge of the educational quality (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003). In the TQM
scenario, therefore, the organisational structure and decision-making are inverted so that
principals lead from the bottom up. Accordingly, educational programmes are designed by
teachers and school leaders based on students needs and expectations. This is a fundamental
paradigm shift in the culture of educational leadership, with leaders expected to be less pre-
scriptive and more supportive collaborators with other stakeholders.
TQM also entails a focus on external networks, emphasising cooperation rather than
competition (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003). Cooperation with parents, other schools, uni-
versities, future employers and the community enhances satisfaction and loyalty. In this way,
an effective chain of stakeholders is built through participation in decisions regarding pro-
gramme design and delivery improvements.
Commitment to Continuous Improvement
TQM espouses continuous improvement of knowledge, processes, products and services
(Bonstingl, 2001; Oakland, 2003; Sallis, 2002). Schools that are quality orientated engage
in continuous innovation and change that better meet their stakeholders expectations and
that support learning for students as well as teachers and leaders (Gandolf, 2006). Achieving
quality is a never-ending journey of improvement of people and processes (Bonstingl, 2001;
Sallis, 2002; Mukhopadhyay, 2005), realised through multi-functional teams, stakeholder
feedback, staff empowerment, and data collection methods and measurement (rather than
inspection regimes) to build quality into the systemand processes (Deming, 2000). Ultimately,
the focus of continuous quality improvement is on the optimisation of both individual and
collective potential within an organisation.
Leadership Based on Data
TQM aims at proactive and responsive (as opposed to reactive) decision-making based on
data and evidence (Deming, 2000; Mukhopadhyay, 2005). Importantly, it suggests developing
a data culture in the school which facilitates participative decision-making, to provide
transparent leadership and more reliable, locally-derived evidence to enable determinations
and problem solving (Deming, 2000).
3
JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR
Professional Learning
Implementing TQM in schools calls for a high degree of delegation and decentralisation re-
quiring that all employees receive relevant professional learning opportunities. Professional
development should be ongoing and respond to practitioners needs in order to explore new
educational thinking and enhance group effectiveness (Wilms, 2003). To be true to Demings
philosophy, professional learning should also serve to create and promote a working envir-
onment in which collaboration and involvement of teachers fromdifferent subject disciplines
and departments prevail (Berry, 1997).
Teamwork
Deming (2000) is adamant of the need to break down barriers between departments and ab-
olish competition within the organisation. Thus, to build an effective TQMculture, teamwork
and cooperation should be extended throughout the school (Sallis, 2002). One of the most
prominent features of TQM concerns the restructuring of the school into semi-autonomous
or self-directed work teams, that communicate laterally while remaining connected to internal
and external stakeholders (Lycke, 2003; West-Burnham, 2004).
Focus on the System
TQMis based on systems thinking an analysis of the interrelationships and interdependence
of constituent units and sub-systems and interpretation of these interactions in predicting
what may happen in other parts of the system if certain changes are made elsewhere (Muk-
hopadhyay, 2005). In essence, systems thinking ensures that the intelligent school is a
living organisma dynamic systemthat is more than just the sumof its parts (Groundwater-
Smith, 2005, p 2).
Cultural Change
The TQM paradigm would represent a cultural change and fundamental shift in thinking
about leadership in many, if not most, Mauritian schools which adhere to traditional, hier-
archical conceptions of leadership (Gronn, 2003; Spillane, 2006). To be useful in education,
school leaders must work with stakeholders to understand clearly those TQM elements that
are most pertinent for quality improvement and customise them to suit their contexts.
Research Methodology
A mixed methods research was employed to investigate principals views about school and
systemic improvement and the usefulness or otherwise of TQM in raising quality (including
equity) in Mauritian schools. This paper reports specifcally on qualitative aspects of the
study related to data collected by means of semi-structured interviews conducted with a
purposive sample of six principals. (The quantitative data collected through a countrywide
questionnaire survey of all primary and secondary school principals will be the focus of a
forthcoming research article.) The research questions were:
4
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
Do principals perceive their current leadership practices for school improvement bear
resemblance with the TQM philosophy?
Do principals perceive that TQM-like tenets could be usefully adapted for school im-
provement purposes?
Six schools were involved (two primary and four secondary schools), representing diversity
of sector, level of schooling, gender, location and socio-economic status of the enrolling
families. Three schools were in urban areas and three were rural, three were state and three
Catholic schools (also controlled by Mauritian education authorities). Two principals were
females, four were males. One school had children predominantly fromprofessional families,
another with a large population from working class families, and the others with students
from mixed backgrounds. Difference between schools was seen as valuable for the research
in exploring TQMs relevance and applicability in divergent contexts.
The qualitative phase of the research was an exercise in grounded theory building (Glaser
and Strauss, 1967). In this approach, theory emerges from the data gathered through an in-
ductive process whereby emerging research insights are analysed and continually tested,
producing further evidence and/or new theoretical insights (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The
iterative processes of developing claims and interpretations is responsive to research situations
and the multiple layers of meaning produced by the people in them (Gray, 2009). Open
coding identifed several categories of causal conditions, phenomena, strategies, and con-
sequences. Axial coding identifed and classifed the data and enabled connections between
categories to be made, while selective coding refned the integration of categories.
Issues of reliability and validity were addressed using Guba and Lincolns (1989) set of
standards for establishing the quality or trustworthiness of data in qualitative research. The
participating principals were allowed to listen to their audio-recorded responses and read
the observational feld notes taken immediately after the interview, and were asked if these
refected what they intended them to mean. Transcripts or analysed results were taken back
to the interviewparticipants so that they could themselves legitimately judge the credibility
of the results. Transferability was enhanced by providing a detailed description of the re-
search context and the assumptions that were central to the research. Another technique was
the triangulation or multiple methods of data collection and analysis, which strengthens
dependability as well as credibility (Merriam, 1998).
Findings, Discussion and Implications for School Leadership
The data analyses and fndings fromthe interviews with the Mauritian principals are categor-
ised under the TQM principles identifed in the literature review, which are used as the or-
ganising framework to highlight themes. Because of the interdependence of the TQMprinciple
of cultural change with the other principles, the data are not analysed separately with ref-
erence to cultural change, but are captured and subsumed within the other principles/headings.
Distributed Leadership
A major fnding is that while the Mauritian principals were comfortable with the current
notion of distributed leadership and voiced compellingly that they put it into practice, in
many instances, their comments revealed contradictions to a genuinely collaborative approach.
These principals did not seem to trust a large array of stakeholders within the school com-
5
JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR
munity. Instead, they placed more professional responsibility in the hands of those who
would buy into their vision and believe in and support their own ways of seeing and doing
things. It was a vision imposed from above and there was no readiness to move forward
towards change that involved everyones contribution. For example, principals stated:
Although I would describe my leadership style as democratic, sometimes I still need
to impose. These policy guidelines enable me to exercise control. The guidelines
also ensure that everybody knows exactly what is expected of them. (PA)
You cannot be on top of them (teachers). You have to be in the middle of them and
share your vision, and make it accepted in a democratic way so that they feel they have
ownership of it and they will therefore be more inclined to be committed to that vision.
(PA)
We empower all staff to make decisions and even hold them accountable for exercising
initiatives aligned with the schools common mission or educational purpose. The
idea is to give staff a sense that they have a real say in things that matter to them and
that affect them most. (PF)
These comments suggest an underlying autocratic leadership style which served principals
own interests.
Moreover, the responses of Mauritian principals infer that the formal school leader should
remain responsible and accountable and retain the right of veto in the strategic direction of
the school. The respondents therefore had an erroneous understanding which suggested that
that those in charge of the system are the only ones who could change that system by their
presence and commitment. It has to be noted that formal leaders are not the only agents of
change (Fullan, 2007). If leadership were truly distributed and decisions were made demo-
cratically, then everyone within the teamwould be a powerful agent of change. By and large,
principals agreed to the importance of promoting collaborative approaches and ensuring that
decision-making involved those most affected by outcomes, yet they remained evasive when
prompted into elaborating the sorts of decisions involving stakeholders.
In the conservative Mauritian context where school leadership is predominantly equated
with the actions of principals who are the sole leaders and managers of schools, the educa-
tional system expects and demands that they are in control. Principals are squeezed between
current progressive notions of school leadership and very autocratic government demands
for certain policies to be implemented, with principals being responsible for this (despite
government ideas about how school improvement might occur). They might wish to pursue
distributed leadership styles but change is always painstakingly slowand government demands
immediate (Hargreaves and Fink, 2003; Starr, in press). Thus they are left with no option
than to use their power and formal position to demand conformity from staff in autocratic
ways.
The distributed leadership perspective is borne out by much current literature in educational
leadership (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006; Silins and Mulford, 2002). Moreover, [s]ustainable
leadership is distributed leadership as an accurate description of how much leadership is
already exercised, and also as an ambition for what leadership can, more deliberately, become
(Hargreaves, 2007, p 225). Surely, distributed leadership is an idea whose time has come
6
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
(Gronn, 2000, p 333). Mauritian education authorities recognise the need for change through
its espoused support for TQM-like tenets, although demands for improvement appear to
overlook this aspect of the philosophy.
Focus on the Stakeholder
In this Mauritian study, principals perceived that their schools were not only focusing on
students and tapping into the resources of their staff in their educative mission, but were also
developing links with parents, other educational institutions, businesses and the community.
However, in practice principals main focus was to secure stakeholders attention through
marketing and public relation strategies, not through collaboration in the schools operations,
decision-making or governance. There were several instances of parents, for example, being
actively dissuaded from participating in decision-making. For example:
We believe that we have a better perspective than parents of what is necessary for the
school and helpful for their children. So we cant allow parents to intrude too much in
important decision-making in which they might not have the competence, anyway.
(PC)
Some parents use their infuence to control what goes on here when they volunteer, and
what decisions are made in school committees. They just violate their boundaries. Do
you think I can let this happen? (PF)
In general, it can be concluded that in all the sampled schools, parents and students as primary
stakeholders have less professional say than educators, consistent with provider capture,
a widespread phenomenon coined by Gannicott (1997) whereby schooling is controlled by
the people who produce it rather than by those who consume it. It is easy for the needs
and demands of central education authorities to take precedence in policy making and regu-
latory activities which result in their all encompassing bureaucratic arms controlling the
work of schools and in turn keeping stakeholders at arms length to abide by the decisions
of school leaders whose vested power allows them to act as intermediaries in implementing
decisions from above.
Yet, there is substantial evidence from the literature that supports the building of relation-
ships with all stakeholders inside and outside the school, with school leaders viewing
themselves as collaborators of one another and of teachers, students, parents, businesses and
community members (Bonstingl, 2001). This is perceived as essential for ensuring sustainable
improvements in quality performance (Deming, 2000; Oakland, 2003), and developing a
learning organisation (Gandolf, 2006; Senge et al., 2000) in which fear by gratuitous bur-
eaucratic rules and regulations is driven out (Deming, 2000) in favour of genuine distributed
leadership resulting in empowerment of people at all levels.
Commitment to Continuous Improvement
Like the rest of the world, schools in Mauritius are changing signifcantly. School improve-
ment, education reformand similar themes of renewal have been an integral part of Mauritian
education for the past twenty years and beyond if we consider earlier waves of reform
7
JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR
(Ministry of Education and Scientifc Research, 1998, 2001a, 2001b, 2003). Learning how
to successfully implement changes in the current educational and economic contexts is par-
ticularly important, especially at a time of a huge variety of initiatives and innovations and
when there are competing government reforms being promoted in schools concurrently.
The empirical evidence in this study points out, however, that school leaders have a
mounting task in managing the level of resistance to change and in aligning teachers work
towards their vision and government objectives (see also Starr, in press). Some indicative
comments included:
Any school improvement plan should include goals that are aligned with the ministrys
initiatives. We dont have much choice, do we? Also, parents, students and other
stakeholders have conficting interests and demands, and we have to try to please
everybody. (PD)
Every fve years or so, a new government is elected, bringing a new educational reform
which contradicts and substitutes an earlier reformby the old regime. Anewgovernment
[thinks it] has to be seen to be doing things differently but they dont even consult
us. Here we go, abiding by orders fromabove and starting all over again. The situation
is really chaotic. (PF)
The study reveals that the heavy hand of government often imposes educational reforms
on schools, with school leaders acting as the gate-keepers of such major change agendas
(see also Starr, in press). Principals, however, are not partners in policy decisions. The failure
or inability of Mauritian principals to fully commit themselves to the TQM philosophy and
to achieve quality and genuine school improvement could largely be explained by autocratic
government demands for policy implementation, with principals positioning themselves as
middle managers and abiding by orders received from the upper echelons even though the
government itself espouses distributed leadership and a TQM approach. Principals feel they
have to be authoritarian and coercive to some extent because often policy change is unpop-
ular and major change is diffcult to lead (Starr, in press). This is exacerbated by the shifting
political interventions as the Mauritian government changes, with each newregime bringing
its own assortment of innovations which are often in confict with earlier ones. As Hargreaves
and Fink (2003, p 693) argue, [e]ducational change is rarely easy to make, always hard to
justify and almost impossible to sustain. It is perhaps no wonder that the structure of
schooling and practice of teaching in Mauritius have remained remarkably stable over decades
amidst radical but ephemeral reforms (see also Evans, 2001). However, if TQM demands
certain compliant behaviours at the micro level, then these should also occur at the national
level. The government needs to make overtures to trust schools and their principals.
Leadership Based on Data
The use of data, including benchmarking, to measure work quality and refnement was not
an area of strength of the principals. The principals responses are in agreement with the
observations made by Evans (2007) that measurement, analysis, and knowledge management
efforts are often the least advanced of the quality dimensions within organisations. Principals
lack of time and lack of confdence due to their inadequate knowledge of statistics were ad-
8
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
ditional barriers to the use of tools and techniques for systematic data collection and analysis,
again corroborating with other research fndings (e.g. Schildkamp and Kuiper, 2010; Shen
and Cooley, 2008). Principals commented:
I think there is nothing wrong with using questionnaire surveys and other formal means
to gather information about peoples needs or complaints. The problem is that it takes
time and we have no time for that. We are also not trained to collect data systemat-
ically, let alone to analyse them statistically. (PE)
My staff will have to be trained to construct questionnaires to collect data and they will
need to have some knowledge of statistics to be able to analyse the information. But
not everyone is statistically minded and I guess that it will be hard for all people to
think in statistical terms. The [other] problem is that it will take so much time to carry
out systematic data collection. (PC)
Thus, decision-making based on facts and evidence, as a requirement of TQM, was not
totally substantiated in the Mauritian study. Yet there was strong agreement among the
principals as to potential advantages that would accrue fromdata usage for decision-making
purposes. Principals also believed, however, that to place an overwhelming importance on
data in making educational choices and decisions is to potentially deny the importance of
people, who are at the heart of the school improvement process, and their professional intuition
and judgement.
Hence, there is an urgency to determine the current level of leaders [and teachers] ex-
pertise in accessing, generating, managing, interpreting, and acting on data (Knapp et al.
2006, p 39). Care will have to be taken that unintended or undesirable effects do not occur
as a result of an overemphasis on data-driven decision-making for example, reduced mo-
tivation among teachers due to extra workload or narrow focus on the tested curriculum
(Schildkamp and Teddlie, 2008).
Professional Learning
Professional learning, together with distributed leadership, are the areas of leadership practice
in the sampled schools that were found to be the least aligned with the TQM paradigm. Ac-
cording to principals, professional learning opportunities were made available to staff in the
form of staff development programs for heads of department and heads of year, which they
claimed they were conducting themselves. One principal explained:
Staff development is effected via staff meetings and general workshops From
time to time, we organise whole-staff sessions and in-service sessions for heads of de-
partment and heads of section when either myself or my assistant would take the lead
to address issues as wide-ranging as classroom management, discipline, assessment,
teaching of mixed-ability classes. (PD)
However, the true purpose of these in-service training sessions seemed to be ad hoc orient-
ation sessions to disseminate school protocols and policies and, therefore, cannot be called
professional learning as such. Effective professional learning should instead be purposefully
9
JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR
directed and focused on curriculum or pedagogy or both (Garet et al., 2001), and concerned
with creating and sustaining a school climate that empowers teachers to be the architects of
their own professional development and to foster their leadership capacity (Cherubini, 2007).
In other words, situational demands should determine professional development, and not
necessarily generic needs as the principals in this study suggested. A decline in resistance
to participation in professional development by educators was noted when the learning
happened in classroom contexts (see also Gallucci, 2008). Hence, in general, professional
learning does not have to stem from an expert, but rather requires collaborative efforts in-
volving teachers with a genuine desire to improve their practice by engaging with colleagues
and sharing ideas with knowledgeable others (Wayman, Jimerson and Cho, 2011).
Principals reported that teachers in their schools received support through in-service de-
partmental workshops supervised by heads of department with the aimof continually improv-
ing their knowledge and skills. However, learning which is compartmentalised into artifcial
subject felds is contrary to Demings systemic view of an organisation where quality is en-
hanced by demolishing barriers between traditional departments and promoting cooperative
ways of working. Improvement of student learning is an interdisciplinary task (Berry, 1997).
The interdependencies of real life which involve the combined use of a number of skills,
should suggest a direction for school activities such as mathematics, languages, science and
social studies but there was no evidence of such integrated learning and cross-discipline
collaborative endeavours. This line of reasoning is consistent with research evidence on or-
ganisational learning which suggests that connecting people who speak from diverse per-
spectives and experiences is essential to organisational health and effectiveness (Senge,
2006).
Teamwork
This study fnds that current Mauritian school leadership practice, at least in the sampled
schools, is focused on the formal leader and ignores the leadership capacity and potential
that exists throughout the school. Morally and practically, the emphasis on the leader is
inappropriate and needs to be replaced by recognition of leadership as a collective capacity
that is refected in structures, processes and relationships (West-Burnham, 2004, p 1). Teams
are likely to be a powerful way of developing potential and capacity. The most prominent
feature is that of teams communicating laterally and their closeness to internal and external
stakeholders (Lycke, 2003). Teams can be viewed as nurseries where there are abundant
opportunities to develop and learn the artistry of leadership in a secure and supportive envir-
onment (West-Burnham, 2004, p 5).
Principals adhered to a very traditional conception of teamwork where the school leader
or another manager would take control and preside over the destiny of the group of people
assembled for a specifc function or project. In all cases, formal school leaders were adamant
that they had to retain the right to oversee the strategic direction of the school or that they
were the only ones in charge of the system. One principal made it clear:
A parent could make inputs about school matters to the committee and the chairperson
would submit the input to the school leadership team. Committee members know,
however, that their powers are restricted and that the school [leadership] team has the
fnal say on policy matters. (PF)
10
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
Principals made contradictory comments about an emphasis on building effective working
relationships, however. In general, while principals claimed their penchant to collaborative
approaches centred on issues such as curriculum pedagogy and assessment, their very own
comments revealed a major contradictionleadership was not distributed but was rather
concentrated at the top and was very much concerned with the implementation of policy
directives.
A most obvious departure from Demings notion of teamwork is that most principals felt
that professional learning ought to be a matter of the individual teachers own responsibility.
This was evident in comments such as:
Teachers are adults who know how to take care of themselves. They know what they
need to do to improve their own education and personal development. (PB)
It is required of teachers to put in all effort in the planning and preparation of their les-
sons and to be responsible for their own professional and personal development so as
to teach more effectively. (PE)
Deming (2000) makes a distinction between the impact of individual learning and that of
team learning, and recommends breaking down barriers between departments within the
organisation. If teams learn, they become micro-cosmic for learning throughout the organ-
isation. Teamaccomplishments can set the tone and establish standards for learning together
for the larger organisation. The key point is that teamwork recognises and uses complexity
in a way that individuals are unable to (Oakland, 2003).
Focus on the System
Another signifcant fnding in this study is that none of the principals assumed their leadership
role as a systemic one, but were rather concerned and focused on what was happening in
their own schools as stand-alone sites. Whatever the publicly stated vision of the participating
schools, in reality, principals were functioning in a mode which conceived their leadership
as bounded by their own interests or those of their schools. Collective responsibility in the
Mauritian educational system was a far cry from reality and, at least in the sampled schools,
the impetus to compete and succeed at the expense of other schools remained strong. Prin-
cipals also perceived that any gestures of assistance to other schools would be cynically re-
jected. As one principal explained:
Of course, we could have reached out to lowperforming schools to assist themin terms
of teaching methods, learning resources and management practice. As a leading
school, we could have set the example, but there is also the problem of other schools
not wanting to be shown how to do things. They would surely be saying say: But who
are you? or Do you think you are that perfect? (PA)
There is the suggestion in the above comment that there are problems with the teachers,
students and their parents in lower achieving schools, which are condemned and marginalised.
The reservation set by the principal is also an indication that some schools perceived them-
selves as quality schools, but did not see themselves having a role to produce a quality
education system at the national (or international) level.
11
JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR
Mauritius is such a small country that the educational system can be viewed as a single
social organisation composed of many schools, similar to a school district in some other
countries. This larger system needs to constantly improve as an entity if Mauritius is to raise
educational standards over the long term. Besides, raising a countrys economic competitive-
ness necessitates curtailing competition in education, not increasing it (Caro, 2010). The
way forward in the drive towards total quality is to improve constantly and forever the system
by building partnerships of trust and cooperation among educational institutions to support
each others continuous improvement efforts. There is a burgeoning literature indicating that
partnerships can signifcantly improve the learning experience, achievement and life chances
of students (e.g. Higham and Yeomans, 2005; Lumby and Morrison, 2006). Such networks
of support at the macro level are essential for learning and improvement to be optimised at
the micro level (Bonstingl, 2001).
If school leaders, policy makers and central education authorities in Mauritius obstinately
continue to envision the educational leadership arena as delimited by the traditional structure
in which single schools function autonomously, then they will not refect cooperation and
mutuality in trusting partnerships with alignment of goals and values (Lumby and Morrison,
2006). Neither will the Mauritian educational systemliberate itself fromits present ingrained
competitive orientation which blatantly applauds the reinforcement of stratifed prestigious,
so-called star schools to the detriment of a signifcant majority of students in weaker
schools. Real educational leadership would be for school leaders and central education au-
thorities to challenge the so-called star-school system as an issue of social injustice. Research
suggests benefts for all students and staff through schools networking, clustering, merging
and connecting in tangible ways (Starr and White, 2008). By pooling resources and agreeing
on some degree of mutual development, schools could create new possibilities in ways that
would not otherwise have been possible.
Implications for Further Research
To the best of our knowledge, this is the frst ever study on TQM in primary and secondary
education in Mauritius at the national level. As there are no studies with which to compare
the fndings of the present study, they are certainly worth exploring in further studies. Future
research can improve upon the fndings of the present study by using larger samples of
principals and raters other than principals, such as deputy principals, heads of year group,
heads of department, teachers, students and parents. This type of research can potentially
triangulate the fndings of the present study, provide more comprehensive fndings about
successful school leadership practices and offer a richer and more accurate description of
leadership reality in Mauritius.
Conclusion
By and large, the fndings reported in this study paint a rather gloomy picture of school
leadership in Mauritius in relation to the application of effective practices embedded within
the TQM paradigm despite government aims. While critics might point out that TQM is an
ideal which is hard to achieve, it precisely serves the purpose of an ideal: that is, to provide
a benchmark and goal against which to measure progress. Principals responses in this study
indicate that TQM discourses are accepted and even applauded, but their fulfllment in
12
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
practice will require considerable adjustments to current implicit leadership theory and
practices. However, education authorities reaffrm the governments vision of Mauritius as
a world player in the vanguard of global progress and innovation and to make the Mauritian
economy more internationally competitive, and hence a systematic initiative for quality im-
provement is required even though its implementation may be diffcult.
13
JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR
References
Berry, G. (1997). Leadership and the development of quality culture in schools. International Journal
of Educational Management, 11(2), 5264.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure Is Not an Option: Six principles that guide student achievement in
high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: HOPE Foundation/Corwin Press.
Bonstingl, J. J. (2001). Schools of Quality (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003). School Leadership: Concepts and evidence. UK: National College
for School Leadership.
Caro, J. (2010). The winner takes it all. Education Review, May, 2010, 1819.
Cherubini, L. (2007). Acollaborative approach to teacher induction: Building beginning teacher capacity.
Paper presented at the Association of Teacher Educators Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Jager, H. J. and Nieuwenhuis, F. J. (2005). Linkages between total quality management and the
outcomes-based approach in an education environment. Quality in Higher Education, 11(3),
251260.
Deming, W. E. (2000). The NewEconomics for Industry, Government, Education (2
nd
ed.). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Evans, J. R. (2007). Impacts of information management on business performance. Benchmarking:
An International Journal, 14(4), 517533.
Evans, R. (2001). The Human Side of School Change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems
of innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4
th
ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional
learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114, 541581.
Gandolf, F. (2006). Can a school organization be transformed into a learning organization? Contem-
porary Management Research, 2(1), 5772.
Gannicott, K. (1997). Taking education seriously: A reform program for Australias schools. St. Le-
onards, NSW: Centre for Independent Studies.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. and Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes profes-
sional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educa-
tional Research Journal, 38(4), 915945.
Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative re-
search. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Gray, D. E. (2009). Doing Research in the Real World (2
nd
ed.). London: Sage.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management
and Administration, 28(3), 317338.
Gronn, P. (2003). The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of
school reform. London: Paul Chapman.
Groundwater-Smith, S. (2005). Through the keyhole into the staffroom: Practitioner inquiry into school.
AHIGS Conference. Shore School.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable leadership and development in education: Creating the future,
conserving the past. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 223233.
Hargreaves, A. and Fink, A. (2003). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693700.
Higham, J. J. S. and Yeomans, D. J. (2005). Collaborative Approaches to 1419 Provision: An evalu-
ation of the second year of the 1419 Pathfnder Initiative. Nottingham: Department for
Education and Skills (DfES).
14
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
Knapp, M. S., Swinnerton, J. A., Copland, M. A. and Monpas-Huber, J. (2006). Data-informed Lead-
ership in Education. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful School Leadership:
What it is and how it infuences pupil learning. London: DfES.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., and Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing
leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy
in Schools, 6, 3767.
Lumby, J. and Morrison, M. (2006). Collective leadership of local school systems: Power, autonomy
and ethics. Paper presented at the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration
Conference, Lefkosia, Cyprus, 1217 October.
Lycke, L. (2003). Team development when implementing TPM. Total Quality Management, 14(2),
205213.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education (2
nd
ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Ministry of Education and Human Resources (MEHR) (2006). Quality Inititiatives for a World Class
Quality Education. Port Louis, Mauritius: MEHR.
Ministry of Education and Scientifc Research (MESR) (1998). Action Plan for a New Education
System in Mauritius. Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.
Ministry of Education and Scientifc Research (MESR) (2001a). Ending the Rat Race in Primary
Education and Breaking the Admission Bottleneck at Secondary Level: The Way Forward.
Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.
Ministry of Education and Scientifc Research (MESR) (2001b). Reforms in Education: Curriculum
Renewal in the Primary Sector. Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.
Ministry of Education and Scientifc Research (MESR) (2003). Towards Quality Education for All.
Port Louis, Mauritius: MESR.
Mukhopadhyay, M. (2005). Total Quality Management in Education (2
nd
ed.). New Delhi: Sage.
Oakland, J. S. (2003). Total Quality Management: Text with cases (3
rd
ed.). London: Elsevier.
Sallis E. (2002). Total Quality Management in Education (3
rd
ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Schildkamp, K. and Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed curriculumreform: Which data, what purposes,
and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and teacher education, 26(33), 482496.
Schildkamp, K. and Teddlie, C. (2008). School performance feedback systems in the USA and in the
Netherlands: A comparison. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(3), 255282.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Revised
ed.). New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools That
Learn: A ffth discipline feldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about
education. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Shen, J. and Cooley, V. E. (2008). Critical issues in using data for decision-making. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(3), 319329.
Silins, H. and Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In Leithwood, K. and Hallinger, P.
(eds.). Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp
561612). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Starr, K. (in press). Principals and the politics of resistance to change. Educational Management, Ad-
ministration and Leadership: 39/6, November 2011. Sage, UK.
Starr, K. and Oakley, C. (2008). Teachers leading learning: The role of principals. The Australian
Educational Leader, 30(4), 3436.
Starr, K. and White, S. (2008). The small rural school principalship: Key challenges and cross-school
responses. Journal for Research in Rural Education, 23(5), 112.
15
JEAN CLAUDE AH-TECK, KAREN STARR
Wayman, J. C., Jimerson, J. B. and Cho, V. (2011). Organizational considerations in educational data
use. Paper presented at the 2011 meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
West-Burnham, J. (2004). Building Leadership CapacityHelping Leaders Learn: An NCSL thinkpiece.
UK: National College for School Leadership.
Wilms, W. W. (2003). Altering the structure and culture of American public schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
84(8), 606615.
About the Authors
Jean Claude Ah-Teck
Deakin University, Australia
Prof. Karen Starr
Deakin University, Australia
16
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING
Copyright of International Journal of Learning is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.