The justifications, components, and process of quality assurance in schools

The justifications, components, and process of quality assurance in schools.

For nowadays educational system organization keep improving in the factors of supervision and development to meet excellent. The differences and similarity between instructional supervision and quality assurance for school make several issues that will benefit and also problem for organization in improvement.

The trend toward control over the organizations by higher governmental agencies continues to accelerate in proportion to the hue and cry for improving standardized test scores and unfavorable publicity about the quality of instruction in the organization. An imminent threat to local initiative is the upsurge of government regulations, assessment, mandates, and competency tests that attempt to control the quality of instruction by means of forms required by state and federal offices. Other pressures come from needed attention to equal rights and culturally diverse concerns, as well as self-interest of teacher organizations, and public apathy toward providing increased financing for schools. It is not news in educational circles that budget related cutting of professional positions usually affects supervisory personnel first.

The most productive approach to issues is to see them positively, recognizing that issues present highly challenging opportunities for leadership. Every issue has in it the opportunities for effective leadership. Organizations are looking for leadership, are ready for constructive action, and will support effective leadership through high quality supervision. However, a major problem in supervision today is the haziness that surrounds these concepts both from the view of the supervisor and from the view others have of the supervisor. An area supervisory problems peculiar to desegregating school systems is that of supervising a person of another race.

These and other issues are not likely to go away in the near future. Supervision must address the realities in new ways. The worst resolution would be accept these issues as a way of life and sidestep them as much as possible by retreating to one’s office to fill out stacks of forms, send out memos and surveys to accumulate information, and generally cope with peripheral matters while appearing to be very busy.

Same category, supervision authority to do something on solving a problem is essential if supervisors are to be held responsible for developing a solution. However, authority is frequently misplaced, misused, or misinterpreted. Too frequently, supervisors go to the opposite extreme of laissez faire behavior or deliberate abstention from direction or planning. Abstention from authority is also an abstention from responsibility for assessing the quality of instruction and maintaining high standards in the organization. That’s the reason supervisory authority in the best sense of the term, is based on the premises of democratic supervision program is pursued in the schools with full staff involvement in educational planning, with leadership as a shared responsibility with the management, with use of supervisory techniques that stress warmth and friendliness and avoid threat, insecurity, and preaching and are primarily concerned with releasing the talents of each individual.

Responsibility in supervision is essentially responsibility for practicing the best that is known about supervision. Supervisors generally are excellent troubleshooters and accept responsibility for coping with daily crises and dealing with details. To meet their major job responsibilities for improving the quality of instruction and producing a constantly updated curriculum, supervisors must provide leadership in constant reformulation of curriculum and instruction as new information becomes available.

There is a study of staff development programs from a recent investigation is a series of studies of staff development organizes by the Rand Corporation. In an extensive inquiry into staff development programs in local organization districts across the country including intensive field work in 30 districts. It seemed to be no conceptual model underlying most staff development programs, but that there appeared to be a hodgepodge of miscellaneous workshops and courses. The study distinguished between successful and unsuccessful staff development programs. The unsuccessful programs relied on a deficit model, which is an approach that assumed that management were not very competent and that the central office administration knew what managements’ deficits were and what would be best for them to do. The more successful models studied by Rand were developmental models in which the managements participated in solving the problems.