Content uploaded by Bryan R. Cole
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bryan R. Cole on Jul 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
8 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
Quality Management in Education:
Building Excellence and Equity
in Student Performance
JACQUELINE S. GOLDBERG, NORTH BROWARD COUNTY (FLORIDA) HOSPITAL DISTRICT
BRYAN R. COLE, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
© 2002, ASQ
This research is based on a study of Brazosport ISD,
an exemplary school district in Texas that used a
quality management approach that resulted in
greater equity and higher student performance. Faced
with deteriorating state test scores in several schools,
particularly those with a high population of economi-
cally disadvantaged students, this district elected to
apply the philosophy, tools, and methods of quality
management as a means to raise student achieve-
ment through system alignment and improvement of
instructional processes.
The findings of the study reveal a school district that
successfully transformed its approach to education,
redirecting its goals and processes to assure the suc-
cess of every student. This article provides an analysis
of the approach and deployment of changes, outcomes
obtained, and implications for continuous improve-
ment in other public school systems.
In validation of the success of its new methodology
and the results achieved Brazosport ISD won the Texas
Quality Award in 1998 and received a site visit for the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1999,
the only school district to date to achieve both honors.
Key words: educational reform, instructional process,
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, school
improvement, state testing, Texas Quality Award, total
quality management
INTRODUCTION
Educational leaders in the new millennium face a dra-
matic state of uncertainty. There is a great deal of pres-
sure to achieve a range of performance expectations in
a climate of student performance and financial
accountability. Pressure is also mounting from those
seeking to create alternatives to public education. How
educational leaders perform the role of change agent
may well determine the success and future of public
schools. The direction for change must guide schools to
be more productive, effective, efficient, and human.
One school district in Texas, Brazosport ISD, has
been an exemplar for bringing about effective change.
In 1998 it was the first public-education recipient of
the Texas Quality Award. This award recognizes
organizations that are outstanding role models for
performance excellence and in the application of
quality management principles. In 1999 Brazosport
ISD was one of only two districts nationwide that
received a site visit from the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award program.
This study reports the research of a yearlong quali-
tative study of Brazosport ISD. The study analyzed and
documented the approach and deployment of quality
management at Brazosport ISD that led to winning the
Texas Quality Award, and analyzes the outcomes and
implications for continuous improvement. In that
Brazosport ISD has shown tremendous improvement in
the area of student achievement, this study reveals
strategies that can be applied toward increasing equity
and raising the performance and overall quality of
education in other districts.
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 8
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
Background on Reform
Reform efforts in education have focused on a variety of
issues mirroring the problems of the decades in which
they were endorsed. Dobyns and Crawford-Mason
(1994) state that in every decade since the 1940s, there
has been at least one major study of American public
education, and all of them concluded that public edu-
cation was bad and getting worse. Despite the best
efforts of educational specialists and large amounts of
money being dedicated to reform, quality has not been
systemically attained. This is partly because initiatives
stemming from “A Nation at Risk” and other similar
reports did not recognize that the problems of education
were systemic and therefore recommended solutions
that only aimed at improving parts of the system rather
than the whole (National Commission on Excellence in
Education 1983). The abundance of data suggests that
reforms have failed to remove the problems they were
intended to solve. Perkinson (1995) identified four
overriding problems in education. They are: 1) an
inadequate emphasis on academic subjects, 2) a lack
of standards, 3) poor teaching, and 4) an absence of
leadership. Most important, reformers called for excel-
lence and equity so that all students would receive the
same high-quality education.
The prevailing current opinion is that reform
requires fundamental and comprehensive change
(Herman and Herman 1994). Morris (1996) notes:
“Organization theorists have long argued that school
districts suffer from uncertain goals and indeterminate
technology, a difficult environment for identifying
appropriate innovations. Moreover, reformers and gov-
erning agencies push districts into adoption with legis-
lation, court orders, and administrative restrictions and
pull them in with rewards of funding and other
resources. Such innovations may or may not be well
suited to the problems they are expected to solve or well
received by those they are intended to aid.” (p. 22)
Senge et al. (2000, 77) note: “Most schools are
drowning in events. Each time (an event occurs), the
superintendent (or other staff member) does a heroic job
of fixing the problem.... But there’s a real chance that
each quick fix will do more harm than good in the long
run.” Piecemeal attempts at reform cannot do much but
perpetuate the status quo because they tend to be over-
whelmed by existing institutional structures and atti-
tudes. Schools that learn and improve are those that
approach change from a systems perspective (Senge et al.
2000). The more systemic the change, the more the
school embodies change in behaviors, culture, and struc-
ture, and the more lasting the change will be. W. Edwards
Deming (1994, 50) maintained that “a system is a net-
work of interdependent components that work together to
try to accomplish the aim of the system.” Thus, to bring
about effective change in schools, their components and
interdependencies must be understood and managed as a
system directed at a well-articulated aim.
QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND
TQM IN EDUCATION
Total quality management (TQM) was first introduced as
a business management approach in the post-World War
II era when Deming and others successfully reinvented
the Japanese economy. Beginning in the early 1980s,
American business leaders looked to the philosophy, prin-
ciples, and TQM tools to improve the economy. More
recently, education leaders have begun to recognize the
potential for TQM applied to educational organizations.
Quality management provides a connection
between outcomes and the process by which outcomes
are achieved. If, as many people realize, the cause of
failures in education is a problem in design, quality
management may be regarded as an ideal systemic
process for managing change in public education
(Frazier l997).
There has been some reluctance to apply quality
practices to education, yet central to Deming’s meth-
ods and management philosophy is an insistence that
anything can be made or done better. Americans have
steadfastly held the belief that education is the fortifi-
cation against poverty and social unrest. There exists,
however, a subtle pessimistic attitude that people are
doing the best they can with what they have. The mes-
sage appears to be that education can only be success-
ful with certain students. Deming (1992, 6) writes
that with its “underuse, misuse, and abuse of skill
and knowledge...the United States may be the most
www.asq.org 9
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 9
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
underdeveloped nation in the world.” Improvement
with all levels of students must be viewed as not only
possible but also essential.
The decision to use TQM principles to guide change
in schools is made for a variety of reasons. Some school
districts are encouraged by business partnerships and
training; others see the similarities with effective schools
research (Lezotte 1992). In 1989 the State Department of
Education in Louisiana made effective schools/school
improvement process available to all districts for plan-
ning and implementing improvement. In the school
year 1991-1992, the state made training in quality man-
agement available to schools on a pilot test basis. The
experiences of schools and districts were positive, and the
department expanded its training and assistance to more
schools (Hord and Monk 1997). In 1982 the South
Huntington school system in Long Island, N.Y., became
interested in bringing quality processes into its educa-
tional setting. It found local businesses such as
Grunman, Hazeltine Corporation, and Estee Lauder will-
ing to share what it knew of quality management
(Wilson 1993). In Chicago, the impetus was a major
change in state law in 1989. Legally mandated redistrib-
ution of power and resources led city educators to
embrace quality as a key part of the process of change.
Whatever the determining incentive, where quality
management has been applied to education, it has made
a huge difference (Dobyns and Crawford-Mason 1994).
Quality is creating an environment where educators,
parents, government officials, community representa-
tives, and business leaders work together to provide
students with the resources they need to meet current
and future academic, business, and societal needs
(Arcaro 1995). As has been the case in industry, when
quality management comes to education, some long-
held ideas, specifically about how to manage the teach-
ing/learning process, have to change. In some instances,
the ideas are not new but long had been ignored. In any
case, education can be improved through quality man-
agement (Tribus 1993).
The industrial model does not transfer perfectly into
education. Successful practitioners take the best from
industrial experiences and combine this with the best
learning theories and methods. The result is a hybrid
that varies from school to school (Marsh 1995).
There appear to be three levels of application of
quality management in education. The first level is to
the management processes of a school. Sample school
processes include strategic planning, recruiting and
staff development, deploying resources, and alignment
of what is taught, how it is taught, and how it is
assessed. The next level is teaching quality to students.
Students are recognized as both customers and workers
in the educational system. Administrators need to
involve students in their own education by training
them to evaluate the learning process and accept
responsibility for their learning. What the learning will
look like is no longer predecided. Educators know what
they want to evaluate, but there are many choices as to
how the students arrive at the goals set by them and by
their teachers (Herman and Herman 1994).
Schools that learn and improve are those that
approach change from a systems perspective.
The more systemic the change, the more the school
embodies change in behaviors, culture, and
structure, and the more lasting the change will be.
The highest level of quality principles is in learning.
This is where it impacts the classroom. To achieve the
desired results, educators must question their core
teaching and learning processes and methods. Quality
standards are established for each work process that
results in improving grades and test scores. When the
focus becomes instructional processes and student
learning, the impact of quality management is
the greatest. This represents Brazosport ISD’s most
significant change. The benefit of this focus is further
evidenced by the 2001 Baldrige Award winners in educa-
tion: Chugach School District (CSD) in Anchorage,
Alaska, and Pearl River School District (PRSD) in Pearl
River, N.Y. Through systemic changes and a consistent
emphasis on student achievement, both districts have
made significant improvements. Since 1998, the CSD
increased the percentage of its students who took college
entrance exams from 0 percent to 70 percent. Results on
the California Achievement Tests improved significantly
in all content areas from 1995 to 1999 (see
www.chugachschools.com). PRSD increased the
10 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 10
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
percentage of students graduating with a New York
Regents diploma from 63 percent in 1996 to 86 percent
in 2001. PRSD has improved advanced placement (AP)
course performance from 34 percent of the students
achieving a “3” or better in 1997 to 76 percent in 2001
while dramatically increasing the percentage of students
taking the AP courses (see www.pearlriver.k12.ny.us).
Further results of these two quality-driven school districts
can be seen at www.nist.gov/public_affairs/chugach.html
and www.nist.gov/public_affairs/pearl river.html.
The TQM philosophy manifested by these quality-
driven districts is built upon tenets that can be applied
to any organization. They are systems thinking, cus-
tomer focus, continuous improvement, management
by fact, participatory management, professional devel-
opment, teamwork, leadership, and long-term plan-
ning (Baldrige National Quality Program 2001).
Brazosport ISD, as well as Chugach and PRSD,
embraced each of these in their quest for excellence.
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY
The qualitative methodology was chosen for this study
based upon the assumptions and compatibility of the
process to the goals of the research. This research para-
digm, also referred to as “naturalistic,” is ideographic
in that the purpose is to document one particular case
so readers may potentially transfer and apply the find-
ings into their own culture (Erlandson et al. 1993).
Naturalistic evaluators reject the idea that social reality
is reducible in the same manner as physical reality;
therefore, methods used to study social reality must dif-
fer. The goal in qualitative research is to understand
rather than to know.
Naturalistic research can be defined as an in-depth
and timely focus on a group of people interacting with
each other, their tools, and their environment (Hall
1998). Participants in the study include the researcher
and the people who are being observed and interviewed.
Scott (1995, 51) notes that:
“One of the key factors of this emphasis is the
idea that behavior is based on a perception of
reality as socially constructed. The individual’s
internal representation of the environment is
referenced to a cultural framework that is
constantly evolving. Reality construction is an
ongoing process, carried on at the macro level
by ‘science, the professions, and the mass media
[which] operate to create new categories, typifi-
cations, and causal connections.’”
Scott further points out that individuals also con-
tribute to that conclusion at the micro level by “appropri-
ating and employing these broader cultural frameworks
but also improvise and invent new understandings and
interpretations that guide their daily activities.”
It is the goal of this type of study for the researcher
to observe and explore human behavior in a particular
context and then weave a narrative that accurately and
honestly reflects the lives and voices of a group of peo-
ple (Spradley 1979). This type of narrative is called
thick description. Through thick description, the
researcher attempts to uncover meaning.
The “particular context” for this study was a
school district in Texas—Brazosport ISD. Naturalistic
ontology suggests that realities are entities that can-
not be understood in isolation from their context.
Naturalistic research also calls for the researcher to be
the data-gathering instrument. This enables the iden-
tification and understanding of the realities and inter-
actions that will be encountered. This researcher used
purposive sampling to determine subjects for this
study. The people were identified by their participation
in the change processes that were being chronicled.
Random sampling was not used because the
researcher was not attempting to generalize the find-
ings of the study to a broad population but to capture
the specific activities within a particular context
under study.
The naturalistic research process, as explained by
Erlandson et al. (1993), is an interaction among four
phases. In the first phase, orientation and overview,
information was gathered about the district. This
included state test scores, demographics, economic fac-
tors, introductory talks with the superintendent, and
other information from open records. The initial orien-
tation provided information that led to decisions con-
cerning choice of respondents, follow-up information
needed, and research questions.
www.asq.org 11
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 11
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
The next phase was focused exploration. This was
conducted both on and off site. The purposive sampling
of 10 people, including the superintendent, two princi-
pals, one teacher, two board trustees, and four director-
level individuals, were interviewed. Time was also spent
observing the community, school, and administrative
offices. Each interview was semistructured around a set
of predetermined questions. The questions were:
• What were the goals of the district at the outset of the
implementation of quality practices and what were
the anticipated and unanticipated results?
• What approach did Brazosport ISD take in imple-
menting quality practices?
• What deployment strategies did Brazosport ISD use
in implementing quality practices?
• What approach and deployment strategies were used
in applying for the Texas Quality Award?
• What recommendations does the district have for
other districts with respect to preparing and applying
for the Texas Quality Award?
• How were the Texas Quality Award examiners’ report
and site visit used to continue the quality improve-
ment process?
As the interview progressed, additional questions
were derived from initial respondents’ interviews,
allowing for clarification, triangulation, and member
checking. A process of interviewing, analyzing, and
identifying new information continued until informa-
tion became redundant or fell into categories that were
at odds with each other.
The coding phase (which is designed to organize the
data collected into categories and concepts) was per-
formed during and after the interviews. Categories began
to emerge as responses began to overlap. Open coding
identified general categories of information. The cate-
gories were: 1) impetus for change, 2) district issues,
superintendent leadership, 3) management team, 4)
instructional focus, 5) quality management philosophy,
6) effective schools research, 7) data-based decision
making, 8) high expectations, 9) board support, 10)
parent support, and 11) paradigm shifts. Axial coding set
up relationships that produced conceptual categories.
Six categories were identified in sequence: 1) causal
issues, 2) phenomenon, 3) context, 4) intervening con-
ditions, 5) actions/interactions, and 6) consequences.
Selective coding produced the core theory that
defined the central phenomenon as it pertains to the
school district under study. The result of the coding
phase was the creation of a central theme or “story
line” that reveals and supports (but does not necessari-
ly prove) the grounded theory.
The last phase of the methodology was the final
report. Findings were organized, described, and ana-
lyzed; conclusions were drawn; and recommendations
were developed.
THE BRAZOSPORT STORY
BEGINS
Brazosport, Texas, is located in southern Brazoria
County southeast of Houston and covers an area
approximately 195 square miles along the Gulf of
Mexico. It is home to the largest chemical complex and
deepwater port, with Dow Chemical as a major pres-
ence employing some 6000 people. A study in contrast,
Brazosport has areas of newer, upper-middle class
housing as well as small, cottage-like dwellings, sug-
gesting poorer areas. It is out of this economic disparity
that the impetus for change in the district arose.
In 1991, Gerald Anderson had just been appointed
superintendent for Brazosport. State test scores, just
announced, revealed great disparity in the success of
the Brazosport district’s 18 schools. Several schools had
received letters from the Texas Education Agency warn-
ing that if their test scores were not raised, they would
be rated as a “low performing school.” This affected
nine of the 18 campuses. Twenty-five years earlier, prior
to state assessments, Brazosport had the reputation of
being a “premier quality” school district. A wealthy dis-
trict, it had the highest entry-level pay in the state. The
high salary drew many applicants to the district, allow-
ing it to hire top-notch personnel.
The label given to the nine schools,
accredited/warned, meant at least one subgroup of stu-
dents scored lower than 25 percent on the Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS). If that subgroup
did not move above 25 percent by the next year, the
schools would be subject to state review.
12 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 12
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
The schools receiving this notification were those
that had the most economically disadvantaged stu-
dents, all in the southern part of the district. The staff
members at those schools believed they were doing the
best work they could with their student population, and
there were many excuses for the lack of success. They
claimed that lack of support for education in the home
prevented those students from being successful.
The test scores at the district’s high schools also
showed great variation, which prompted a parent ques-
tion at Anderson’s first board meeting. The northern
part of the district, including Lake Jackson, was the
higher socioeconomic community; Freeport, in the
south, was the lowest. The parent asked, “Was there a
superior level of quality in educational resources,
teaching staff, and practices that explained the differ-
ences between the schools?” While the Brazosport edu-
cational staff spoke of their belief that “all children can
learn,” they accepted as “fact” that children bring dif-
ferent backgrounds and abilities to the classroom,
which, in some cases, limit a student’s ability to learn.
When the incident at the board meeting appeared
the next day in the local newspaper, it was embarrass-
ing and demeaning for the staff of the lower-perform-
ing schools. The article suggested the Freeport staff
actually agreed they were inferior to staff in the other
part of the district. The implication of that suggestion
motivated Anderson and the board to action. As a per-
formance-driven individual, Anderson had to admit
that even his expectations for those students in low
socioeconomic situations were not the same as for oth-
ers in more advantaged situations. He was determined
to find a way to change the mindset toward lower
socioeconomic students, his own as well as others, and
to work toward equity and success for all in the delivery
of education at Brazosport ISD.
Changing the Approach to
School Reform
Morris (1996) points out that the dominant model for
change in education has been the rational model that
relies on goals, a selected policy, program changes put
in place, and the process set into motion. Feedback to
the process is achieved by monitoring the process
through inspection and evaluation. Morris (1996, 428)
goes on to note that the rational model has not provid-
ed effective educational reform, and one preferred rea-
son for that comes from institutional theory. “School
districts are institutionalized organizations, compelled
by an ambiguous technology to seek rewards and
means of survival through conformation to expecta-
tions in their environment about the behaviors appro-
priate to school districts.”
In contrast, the TQM approach suggests breaking
from this “institutionalized model” and viewing schools
as systems. Senge (1990) points out that “business and
other human endeavors are systems. They too are bound
by invisible fabrics of interrelated actions, which often
take years to fully play out their effects on each other.”
This is certainly true in education where hundreds, if not
thousands, of variables influence the educational
processes and ultimately the achievement of students.
School reform and enhanced student achievement must
go beyond simple direct cause and effect analysis and
understand the interdependencies and relationships that
exist and influence the temporal performance of sys-
tems, processes, and people functioning within a school
district. Anderson recognized the limited impact tradi-
tional “institutionalized” approaches to educational
reform would have and was open to the quality manage-
ment experiences that many of his board members had
experienced as Dow Chemical employees.
TQM IS INTRODUCED IN
BRAZOSPORT
Anderson was invited by several board members to
attend quality management training. He attended a
course given by Deming himself. As he listened, he
began to look at school districts as systems and how
improvement might be possible following the quality
philosophy and using its tools.
Parallel events occurred that reinforced the
Brazosport quality start-up. The district used Service
Master Corporation to provide custodial services. One
of its employees began quality training of district
administrative personnel to effect improvement in the
www.asq.org 13
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 13
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
support areas of the district, primarily in the financial
area. This concurrent involvement with quality man-
agement accelerated the interest of the Brazosport
management team.
The next step in the process was to institute training
for the central office staff and all the principals.
Anderson worked with Dow to get the resources required
to bring about this training. Many people in this group
had previously studied the effective school research of
Larry Lezotte (Lezotte 1992) and recognized the correla-
tions between Deming’s and Lezotte’s work. Training
continued, and soon assistant principals and lead
teachers were also educated in the quality philosophy.
School reform and enhanced student achievement
must go beyond simple direct cause and effect
analysis and understand the interdependencies and
relationships that exist and influence the temporal
performance of systems, processes, and people
functioning within a school district.
It is important to note that the support for quality
management came from all players in the district.
Anderson was zealous, several members of his adminis-
trative staff were committed, and the board was encour-
aging the direction. It is uncommon for such a strong
alliance of ideas to come together in support of a major
philosophical, cultural, and managerial change. While
the widespread support for quality management from
the top might have implied an easy conversion to quali-
ty, it was, in fact, not a simple matter to convince every-
body of its value. The district took a more gradual, com-
mon-sense, and pragmatic approach. After covering the
quality philosophy, they began with things such as
meeting skills. They introduced agendas for their meet-
ings and constructed them to produce results, not mere-
ly to cover agenda items. The practicality of this
approach had an immediate impact in showing the effi-
ciency that meetings could have. Consensus building
through the use of multivoting was introduced. Affinity
diagrams came next as a means for understanding and
deconstructing big, unapproachable issues into compo-
nents that could be worked on. Impact analysis, Pareto
charts, and matrix diagrams followed. Management
and staff began to see that processes could be improved
through the practical application of these tools. The
introduction to quality occurred through a process of
applied learning rather than by an edict sent by man-
agement. With the introduction of an effective tool,
principals could immediately apply the same tool back
on their campuses with equally effective results. The
recognition of professional development and participa-
tory management as part of the criteria for effective
quality management drove this effort.
An important step Anderson took with his board was
to create a vision for the district. The vision for
Brazosport was to be an exemplary school district by
2000. The word “exemplary” has two meanings in this
vision. The first is a classification given to school dis-
tricts by the state of Texas when they achieve the highest
level in their test scores. The vision, however, goes
beyond the official accountability to touch every aspect
of Brazosport ISD operations as well. Anderson called it
“his missionary zeal,” but it was a vision that he held
on to and successfully instilled into the hearts and
minds of his staff. Each person interviewed touched on
Anderson’s vision and how it made a difference in trans-
forming the district. The vision was consistently articu-
lated by everyone in the organization, and it mirrored a
principal tenet referred to by Deming as “constancy of
purpose.” The district’s persistent focus on this organi-
zational vision led staff members to make decisions and
act in ways that helped them reach their goals.
Instructional Focus
The state accountability in Texas has been an extrinsic
motivator by providing an inducement to work toward
better scores and higher ratings. What began as an
extrinsic motivation later became intrinsic, but in 1991
poor test scores in Brazosport ISD had triggered con-
cern. Anderson turned to his director of instruction,
Patricia Davenport, to research teacher performance in
the low-rated schools. She chose to focus on Velasco
Elementary, because it had an excellent principal and
staff. With that foundation, what else made a difference
in success? She also chose Velasco because it had a
high population of economically disadvantaged stu-
dents. After examining thousands of test results, it was
14 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 14
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
found that the students in Velasco Elementary were the
most unsuccessful subgroup.
The theory was that if certain teachers were identi-
fied as having success with typically low-performing
students, they would be able to share their most effective
teaching strategies that lead to success. In the data-rich
environment of the TAAS results, Davenport disaggre-
gated data on all teachers in this one elementary school
in the summer of 1992. In those data, she discovered a
teacher whose third-graders, all economically disadvan-
taged, had a 95 percent mastery of their subjects. This
class stood out from all others.
As Davenport further investigated to identify what
differentiated this class, she discovered a teaching
strategy being used by that teacher. This strategy,
called the eight-step instructional process, is a com-
mon-sense approach that closely resembles the plan-
do-check-act (PDCA) model used by Deming. In this
case the strategy encompassed: 1) data disaggregation
(what are the targets to master for testing, 2) develop-
ing timelines for the teaching process, 3) instructional
focus, 4) assessment, 5) tutorials, 6) enrichment,
7) maintenance of skills and knowledge, and 8) moni-
toring continued improvement.
THE EIGHT-STEP PROCESS IS
PILOTED
In the first year of the pilot at Velasco Elementary,
teachers were trained and the eight-step process was
deployed to all grade levels. In the spring of the first
year, Velasco received a “Significant Gains” award
given by the Texas Education Agency. The school did
not make the “Recognized” category of the TAAS
results, although it came close. The instructional
model was piloted again in the second year with the
philosophy to “go slow to go fast.” It was important
that data be gathered to determine if this solution was
the right one.
At the end of the second year, Velasco received its
“Recognized” rating, the first school with its demo-
graphics in Brazosport to do so. Two years of success
convinced the management team that the process
offered a sound solution and it should be instituted
elsewhere in the district. Lanier, a fifth- and sixth-grade
school; Freeport Intermediate; and Brazosport High
School were the next schools to use the eight-step
process supported by the overall quality framework. It
was significant to discover that the same instructional
process undergirded by the quality principles worked at
different grade levels. After the third year, Brazosport
became the largest recognized district in the state, pri-
marily because of the high scores of the economically
disadvantaged population. Table 1 shows the test scores
of the economically disadvantaged population for the
1992-1993, 1993-1994, and 1994-1995 school years.
Based on these dramatic results, Brazosport ISD’s
quality improvement framework, including the eight-
step instructional method, was deployed to all campuses
throughout the district. Results have continued to
improve as systems have been aligned and as the quality
principles and improved teaching and learning process-
es have taken hold throughout the district. Figures 1-3
illustrate the dramatic improvement in student achieve-
ment resulting from the district’s quality journey. The
scores reflect student performance on the TAAS test
administered annually in reading, math, and writing.
The focus on improving the core educational
process of instruction was working in schools that had
large populations of at-risk students. At other schools
in the district, economically disadvantaged students
represented only a small percentage of the population.
Their scores on the state tests did not affect overall
school rating to the same degree. This did not mean,
however, that those students were any more successful
www.asq.org 15
Table 1 Percentage of Brazosport ISD students
passing TAAS tests in pilot campuses.
1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995
Velasco Elementary 35.50% 72.20% 84.60%
(eco disadvantaged)
Velasco Elementary 37.00% 69.50% 83.80%
(all students)
Freeport Intermediate 22.00% 49.00% 46.50%
(eco disadvantaged)
Freeport Intermediate 36.60% 55.90% 55.00%
(all students)
©2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 15
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
in the better-rated schools. To the contrary, disadvan-
taged students were not being focused on in those
schools because they were not impacting the overall
accountability measure.
By now, the zeal to help every student be successful
had spread. All principals in the district were trained in
the eight-step process and encouraged to institute pro-
grams for their low-performing students. Anderson told
the school principals that he held them accountable for
all their students regardless of whether the state did.
Staff at all Brazosport schools were expected to act as if
they truly believed that all students were going to
16 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
African American
Economically disadvantaged
All students
Hispanic
White
% Score
79
76
61
57
56
52
49
57
59
73
81
86
78
64
57
71
79
80
88
93
97
94
90
83
98
96
94
92
91
93
94
96
98
99
98
97
96
93
65
58
55
54
School Year
91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 2 Brazosport ISD TAAS math results.
©2002, ASQ
% Score
School Year
African American
Economically disadvantaged
91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00
50
60
70
80
90
100
All students
Hispanic
White
82
84
90
83
71
68
93
95
91
84
81
79
98 98 98 98
97
94
95
90
91
96
93
92
95
89
88
87
86
76
74
72
72
68
61
56
70
64
60
57
Figure 1 Brazosport ISD TAAS reading results.
©2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 16
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
achieve success and to make sure their behavior con-
veyed this message. If they were not convinced of this,
they were asked to suspend any negative views or
excuse making. Brazosport leadership was convinced
that if all teachers acted as if they believed all kids
could learn and systems were put into place to support
this, then student achievement could be improved.
There was resistance to using a prescribed instruc-
tional process, but it actually proved to empower teach-
ers rather than hold them back. The process is a frame-
work within which teachers can adapt their own teach-
ing style and make important decisions regarding their
classes. This benchmark process was adopted and
enhanced by the district as the instructional strategy
around which the district would align resources, staff
development, and support services. The following out-
lines in detail Brazosport ISD’s eight-step process.
• Step 1. Data are provided to principals by the cen-
tral office. Principals distribute the data to teachers
who analyze the data by grade level and subject
area. Using state assessment data, test scores are
arranged from lowest to highest to identify instruc-
tional groups and weak and strong objective areas.
Wrong answers are used to improve instruction and
help develop strategies.
• Step 2. Teachers are given time to meet by grade
level and subject area to develop a campus timeline
that encompasses all objective areas. The purpose is
not the order of objectives but the length of instruc-
tional time needed. Time allocations are determined
based on the needs of the student groups and the
weight of the objective.
• Step 3. Using the timeline, an “instructional
focus” sheet stating the objective, target areas,
instructional dates, and assessment date is dissemi-
nated by teachers. The teachers are encouraged to
follow the schedule as closely as possible.
Adjustments are made after the January mock
assessment. The entire school works on the same
target. It is listed on the board and announced every
morning. Even nonacademic teachers are expected
to work the targeted objective into their instruction.
• Step 4. After the instructional focus has been
taught, an assessment is administered to identify
mastery/nonmastery students. The assessments are
given at the end of each target in math, every three
weeks in reading, and every two weeks in writing.
These are teacher graded, usually ranging from 4
to 10 questions in length. The assessment is record-
ed in a binder for student and teacher evaluation
www.asq.org 17
African American
Economically disadvantaged
All students
Hispanic
White
80
87
84
72
68
61
69
72
77
84
90
92
87
80
78
76
84
85
92
96
98 98 98
97
95 95
94
93
97
98
95
89
92
93
96
71
60
59
57
School Year
91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00
50
60
70
80
90
100
% Score
Figure 3 Brazosport ISD TAAS writing results.
©2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 17
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
conferences. The central office also budgets for
the purchase of assessments, tutorial, and enrich-
ment materials.
• Step 5. For those yet to master the objective, this
time is spent for tutorials and reteaching the non-
mastered target area. This is scheduled for 90
minutes a week.
• Step 6. Team time is scheduled for the students
who mastered the objective to have target-related
enrichment.
• Step 7. Maintenance and ongoing reteaching is
continuous until testing time. Brazosport considers
this the most important step. It is not accomplished
with worksheets, but with creative teaching strategies.
• Step 8. The whole instructional process is monitored
daily by the instructional team from the central office
in addition to the building principal. They see that the
critical success factors are in place. Those factors
include teacher behaviors that convey high expecta-
tions, a safe and orderly climate conducive to teach-
ing and learning, teamwork and commitment, and
ongoing measurement that provides good data for
decision-making. They also provide the role model of
being strong instructional leaders. By focusing on
data gathering, analysis, and student and teacher
performance, they are conforming to TQM criteria.
Gaynor (1998) distinguishes between the system
dynamics operating in effective and ineffective schools.
He notes: “An ineffective school is characterized most
effectively by its multiplier effects on children’s learn-
ing. The learning rate of initially high achievers tends
to be exponentially reinforced upward in comparison
with other children. Whereas multiplier effects are
helpful and desirable for high-achieving children, they
are undesirable for lower-achieving children.” (p. 121)
The dynamics of this reinforcing system are illus-
trated in Figure 4 (Gaynor 1998, 122).
The key point is that the multipliers of this rein-
forcing system are based on socially constructed
teacher expectations that academic performance for
all students is primarily a function of “intensity and
appropriateness of instruction” based on a “student’s
motivation to learn” and a “student’s rate of learning.”
This is a common approach to “improve performance”
by many educators.
Contrast this with the multiplier dynamics operat-
ing in an effective school. Figure 5 illustrates these
dynamics (Gaynor 1998, 123). “The key difference
between the multiplier dynamics operating in an inef-
fective and an effective school is that in the effective
school, teacher expectations are based on commonly
shared and stable professional standards for student
academic performance where…teacher expectations
for student academic performance are not permitted
to fall below professional grade-level minimal expec-
tations, and the intensity and appropriateness of
instruction is augmented whenever student academic
18 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
(+)
(+)
Teacher expectations
for student learning
Intensity and
appropriateness
of instruction
Student motivation
to learn
Student rate
of learning
Academic
performance
Figure 4
The multiplier dynamics of schooling that
are ineffective for low-achieving children.
©2002, ASQ
(+)
(-)
(-)
+
-
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
Teacher expecations
for student learning
Ratio of academic performance
to teacher expectations
for academic performance
Intensity and
appropriateness
of instruction
Student
motivation
to learn
Student
rate of
learning
Academic
performance
Professional
standards for
student academic
performance
Figure 5
The negative feedback maintaining effective
schooling for low-achieving children.
©2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 18
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
performance is below grade-level standards. Thus,
there is a stabilizing thermostat system put in place
for low-achieving children, a negative feedback
dynamic that, instead of reinforcing low achievement,
seeks to counteract it.” (Gaynor 1998, 122)
Brazosport’s eight-step instructional process was the
“thermostat system” that enabled the district to move
from being an ineffective school district to a highly
effective school district.
DEPLOYMENT AND QUALITY
PRACTICES
In addition to the attention and emphasis that
Brazosport gave to the use of disaggregated data to
ensure teaching and learning processes were designed
to meet individual learning needs, other processes were
significantly redesigned and improved. Representative
of those were curriculum alignment, staff development,
support services, and the instructional schedule. Each
of these was designed to leverage the resources of the
district in focusing on individual student learning
needs and teacher support required to meet those
needs. An example of the success of Brazosport ISD in
this area is illustrated by the dramatic improvement of
its instructional cost per student and administration
cost per student (see Figure 6). The district’s success is
further evidenced by the high teacher retention rate.
The success at Brazosport is due largely to the
strong leadership of Gerald Anderson. Faced with this
challenge as he began his superintendency in 1991,
Anderson proved to be the right person for the job. He
refers to this early period as his “point of transforma-
tion.” What has made Anderson unique in his efforts
is his ability to share his vision. He relishes his
responsibility to share his philosophy, and he speaks
with passion and urgency. Anderson says, “I am truly
a missionary with zeal, because I think for the very
first time in my career, I am truthfully focused on
what I think public schools have got to do.”
It would seem that, to work for Anderson, one has to
cultivate the same vision. His staff describes him as a
true leader rather than a manager. Anderson believes,
“You have to be able to motivate people. Not only does
the superintendent have to preach those high expecta-
tions and expect them, but you have to be able to con-
vince people that it is the right thing to do and that
they can do it.” According to one of Anderson’s princi-
pals, “Dr. Anderson has a slogan. If you deliver for me,
I will deliver for you.” This is interpreted to mean that
there is a reciprocal agreement that the superintendent
is committed to enabling an administrator to succeed.
It is obvious that Anderson had to have firsthand
involvement in the district. One of his personal goals
was to visit a campus every day he was in the district.
He used those opportunities to revisit the vision
for the district as well as discuss curriculum and
www.asq.org 19
Operational Results
Instructional cost per student
Administrative cost per student
Instructional cost per student
Administrative cost per student
$3,500 $250
$200
$150
$100
$100
$0
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Figure 6 Change in instructional cost per student and administrative cost per student.
©2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 19
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
instructional issues. He tried to get a sense of every-
one’s satisfaction with the processes in place and hear
their concerns. Anderson described his campus visits
this way: “I put myself on the firing line with the
people out there making it happen. They need to be
able to challenge the superintendent, take him to
task. We’ve had some great debates occur in that peri-
od about kids and my expectations, because I will not
accept any excuses that kids can’t learn. I mean, it’s
just unacceptable with me.”
It seems apparent that one cannot separate the suc-
cess at Brazosport from the visionary and supportive
leadership that Anderson provided. It is a clear example
of why strong leadership is a criterion of quality.
Management by fact is another TQM criterion. All
decisions are based on supporting data. Nothing is
determined by feelings or precedent. Decisions are also
centered on how they support the instructional focus.
While this may seem difficult to achieve, it is very effec-
tive. When data are presented that support a decision,
and those data show the focus on the students, the
leadership is apt to respond positively. Education is ripe
with data, particularly in the state of Texas.
Information, such as the district’s results on TAAS, is
reviewed thoroughly with district personnel, and then
shared with campuses and their staff in an effort to
provide appropriate responses. The responses may come
in the form of redesigning processes and programs,
curriculum, or instructional strategies for a specific
student, a specific campus, or the district as a whole.
The data can also lead to decisions regarding set-
ting improvement targets, encouraging breakthrough
approaches, and forecasting and identifying opportuni-
ties for continuous improvement.
Brazosport ISD, guided by a clear mission and
vision and community support, used disaggregated
data to identify individual student learning needs.
School leadership and teachers then translated these
needs into district, campus, and classroom goals and
objectives aligned to the vision and mission. Systems
and processes at the district, campus, and classroom
levels were evaluated and redesigned to accomplish the
identified goals and objectives. Teachers and adminis-
trators were trained to ensure they had the requisite
skills and knowledge to effectively implement the
redesigned systems and processes. Process data were
then generated to align resources and to continuously
improve instructional strategies, teacher and adminis-
trator training, and to improve support processes.
Brazosport ISD worked as a system to transform itself so
all children could learn and be successful.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
OTHER DISTRICTS
The story of one award-winning district was designed
to provide an understanding of the circumstances
leading to and contributing to successful change.
Certainly school districts with high percentages of
economically disadvantaged students will find
Brazosport’s approach and deployment strategies
models for their own situation. Any educational
organization can adapt and duplicate many of the
quality approach and deployment strategies imple-
mented by Brazosport ISD. By instituting a cycle of
planning, analyzing, and continuously improving
processes, using the abundance of data available in
education to inform decision-making, and identifying
areas of success within the district to serve as a model
for best practices, improvement will occur. The results
will be higher student success. It is not a fast or easy
transformation, and districts looking for quick change
should not attempt to follow this model. They must
have patience to collect and analyze data and a will-
ingness to change their paradigms about instruction-
al approach, time, and assessment. Support systems
have to be redesigned to align to the core educational
process. Districts need to be aware that they must con-
tinuously measure their results and use the results to
drive continuous improvement in their systems and
processes. Change can no longer be instituted without
benchmarks established and data analyzed for
informed decision-making and instructional practice
in the context of the whole district as a system.
Other essentials in Brazosport’s success were the
quality of the leadership and the way in which the
vision of the district was constantly articulated. A strong
instructional leader is necessary to help define the
school mission, manage curriculum and instruction,
20 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 20
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
and promote school climate. This person should be a
resource provider, model expected behavior, and build
the capacity of the staff. Training in quality processes
and tools is also vital. This training should encompass
management, board members, faculty, and staff, but
training alone is not sufficient. The processes and tools
must become institutionalized in the way the organiza-
tion conducts business.
Brazosport attributes its success to four tenets:
consistency, accountability, motivation, and expecta-
tions. By taking a systemic approach, the district was
able to overcome the old habit of random acts of
improvement. Key questions that were asked includ-
ed: What is the vision for the school/district? How will
the students benefit if the vision is achieved? What
are the planning processes that will guide the vision?
What opportunities will there be for people to learn?
What will be the monitoring processes? Will the
vision make a positive difference?
The final recommendations may be the hardest for
districts to follow. Decision-makers must be willing to
make those systemic changes that deviate from the
concept of traditional education if the data confirm
the need and they must have the discipline to stay the
course. In the case of Brazosport, solutions to prob-
lems caused significant systemic changes, including
scheduling learning opportunities to meet student
needs and giving teachers increased autonomy to
make those changes. The ways in which education
dollars were spent needed to be aligned with creative
solutions. Many districts are reluctant to make those
changes, but real and lasting solutions cannot always
be found within the current paradigms of existing
educational systems. Morris (1996, 443) posits that
“the idea is that if successful and widely accepted, a
systems perspective that changes the mental models of
administrators, reformers, and policy makers can
modify the cultural framework on which the institu-
tionalized school district is constructed.” It appears
that as a result of this study, a major determiner in
increasing excellence and equity in school and
student performance was the willingness of school
leaders to adopt new mental models that enabled and
empowered school district personnel to follow a sys-
temic and systematic change strategy based on quality
principles and to seek and institute solutions that were
outside the bounds of the institutional cultural frame-
work of “education as usual.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors of this article would like to acknowledge Dr. Gerald
Anderson, Dr. Patricia Davenport, and other Brazosport ISD per-
sonnel for their support and assistance in the conduct of the study
reported here.
REFERENCES
Arcaro, J. 1995. Quality in education: An implementation hand-
book. Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.
Baldrige National Quality Program. 2001. Educational criteria
for performance excellence. Washington, D.C.: National Institute
of Standards and Technology.
Deming, W. E. 1992. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, Mass.:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Deming, W. E. 1994. The new economics for industry, govern-
ment, and education. 2nd edition. Cambridge, Mass.:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dobyns, L., and C. Crawford-Mason. 1994. Thinking about qual-
ity: Progress, wisdom, and the Deming philosophy. New York:
Random House.
Erlandson, D., E. Harris, B. Skipper, and S. Allen. 1993. Doing
naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, Calif.:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Frazier, A. 1997. A roadmap for quality transformation in edu-
cation. Boca Raton, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.
Gaynor, A. 1998. Analyzing problems in schools and school sys-
tems: A theoretical approach. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Hall, J. 1998. Ethnography and evaluation. See URL www.learn-
ing.ed.vt.edu/evalsummer/methnmain.htm .
Herman, J., and J. L. Herman. 1994. Education quality manage-
ment: Effective schools through systematic change. Lancaster, Pa.:
Technomic Publication Co.
Hord, S., and B. Monk. 1997. Total quality: A missing piece for
educational improvement. Issues about change. Austin, Texas:
Southwest Educational Development Lab.
Lezotte, L. 1992. Creating the total quality effective school.
Okemos, Mich.: Effective Schools Products, Ltd.
Marsh, J. 1995. Special report: Quality in education on the
move. Quality Digest Magazine 15, no. 9: 26-32.
Morris, D. 1996. Institutionalization and the reform process: A system
dynamic perspective. Educational Policy 10, no. 4: 427-447.
www.asq.org 21
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 21
Quality Management in Education: Building Excellence and Equity in Student Performance
National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A
nation at risk: A report to the nation and the secretary of educa-
tion. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Perkinson, H. 1995. The imperfect panacea: American faith in
education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scott, W. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage.
Senge, P., N. Cambron-McCabe, T. Lucas, B. Smith, S. Dutton,
and A. Kleiner. 2000. Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the
learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Spradley, J. 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Tribus, M. 1993. Why not education: Quality management in
education. Journal for Quality and Participation 16, no. 1: 12-21.
Wilson, J. 1993. South Huntingdon schools: A decade of seeking
excellence through total quality in education. Journal for Quality
and Participation 16, no. 1: 62-66.
BIOGRAPHIES
Jacqueline Goldberg is a quality specialist for the North Broward
County (Florida) Hospital District. She previously served as a sen-
ior consultant at TransUnion, LLC. She consults on quality
improvement issues and facilitates quality teams in both educa-
tion and business. She has been a school administrator, curricu-
lum director, and consultant for both the New Jersey Department
of Education and the Texas Education Agency at their Region IV
Education Service Center.
Goldberg received her doctorate in educational leadership from
Texas A&M University, emphasizing studies in total quality man-
agement practices as they apply to education. She has also
served as an examiner for the Texas Quality Award and currently
serves as an examiner for the Florida Sterling Award. She can be
reached at jake1422@aol.com .
Bryan R. Cole is professor and head of the Department of
Educational Administration and Human Resource Development at
Texas A&M University. Effective September 2000, Cole received a
special appointment as assistant vice president for quality leader-
ship. He has also served as associate dean of undergraduate stud-
ies in the College of Education for 10 years and assistant dean for
five years. He has served as the director of the Summer Seminar
on Academic Administration for 25 years. Cole’s professional
interests include continuous quality improvement in educational
systems, educational law, and higher education administration,
and he is a frequent speaker and consultant on the implementation
of continuous quality improvement in educational systems. He is a
1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 examiner for the Malcolm Baldrige
National Quality Award certified by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, and currently serves as a judge on the Panel of Judges
for the Texas Quality Award, and is a board member of the
Quality Texas Foundation.
Cole has served as chairman of the Baptist General Convention
of Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and was a mem-
ber of the board for six years. He is a recipient of the Texas A&M
University Association of Former Students Distinguished
Achievement Award in Teaching for 1979 and 1994. Cole
received his bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Military Academy at
West Point and his master’s degree and doctorate in educational
administration (higher education) from Texas A&M University. He
can be reached at b-cole@tamu.edu .
22 QMJ VOL. 9, NO. 4/© 2002, ASQ
Goldberg article 9/19/02 3:09 PM Page 22
