The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
QAE
24,3
394
Received 12 September 2013
Revised 14 March 2014
11 November 2014
6 November 2015
Accepted 27 April 2016
Quality Assurance in Education
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2016
pp. 394-415
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-09-2013-0037
Impact of quality management
systems on teaching-learning
processes
Francisco José Fernández Cruz
Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain, and
Inmaculada Egido Gálvez and Rafael Carballo Santaolalla
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – Quality management systems are being used more frequently in educational institutions,
although their application has generated a certain amount of disagreement among education experts,
who have at times questioned their suitability and usefulness for improving schools. The purpose of this
paper is to contribute to this discussion by providing additional knowledge on the effects in educational
institutions of implementing quality management systems. Specifically, this study investigates
teachers’ and managers’ perception of the impact that quality management systems have on one
essential dimension of schools, the teaching–learning processes, with impact being understood as
sustained medium- and long-term organisational change.
Design/methodology/approach – The responses were analysed and classified into a set of
sub-dimensions linked to quality management processes in a total of 29 Spanish primary and secondary
education schools that have used such systems for at least three years.
Findings – The results showed that, according to the respondents, the following sub-dimensions were
improving as a result of implementing quality management plans: teaching and learning processes, the
analysis of student results, tutoring, consideration of attitudes and values and assessment processes.
Conversely, quality management systems did not seem to have a clear impact on the teaching
methodologies used by teachers or on family involvement in student learning. In fact, the perceived
impact in these sub-dimensions varied among teachers of public and private schools as well as when
comparing different regional autonomous communities.
Originality/value – As the main objective of a school is to guarantee student learning, one of the
essential purposes of school quality assurance systems is to perform all the activities aimed at ensuring
high levels of student performance.
Keywords Spain, Impact evaluation, Quality management systems, Teaching-learning processes,
Teaching methods, European Foundation for Quality Management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In recent years, quality management systems have been implemented in educational
institutions in many countries around the world. The objective of these systems is to
establish continuous improvement mechanisms for all the dimensions and processes in
the school and, ultimately, to improve their performance (CEDEFOP, 2011; Kaplan and
Norton, 1996; Senge, 1990). The increasingly widespread application of these systems
has often been surrounded by intense debate, as the relevance they may have on
education and the appropriateness of the models used for the actual situation at the
schools are often questioned (Doherty, 2008). Many teachers have doubts regarding Impact of
quality management systems, as they consider they may not be the best way to improve quality
the quality of educational institutions and they question the time, or the financial
benefits, of applying them (Van Berghe, 1998).
systems
In addition, research to date has not unequivocally validated the usefulness of quality
management systems in schools (Gibb, 2003; De Vries, 2005; Stensaker et al., 2011).
While some studies pointed out that they help achieve considerable education 395
improvements (Chen et al., 2004; Dobyns and Crawford-Mason, 1994; Kattman and
Johnson, 2002; Sallis, 2002; Stensaker, 2007; Tribus, 1993), other papers indicated that
their effects were irrelevant, or even harmful, for educational centres. Thus, at the
university level, which is where most of the analysis has been done in this respect, some
authors consider that there is little evidence that quality assurance systems are efficient
or achieve the expected results. On the contrary, they seem to foster bureaucracy in
organisations and have no effect on the core aspects of educational processes, or may
even be detrimental (Harvey and Newton, 2006).
In the case of Spain, as in other countries, the use of quality management systems in
education began in universities, and it was later applied to primary and secondary
schools. Implementation at the pre-university levels has been relatively recent, although
it has gradually spread over the past two decades. In some parts of the country, the
education authorities have actively driven schools in their region to become involved in
quality management, providing them with resources and giving teachers and
management teams the necessary training to set them up. In other regions, the
administration’s support for the schools has not been as determined, but nonetheless,
the number of schools that have voluntarily implemented quality assurance systems
has also risen significantly. Although there are centres using ISO standards, the system
most frequently used in Spanish schools is the EFQM Excellence Model (Martínez and
Riopérez, 2005). The EFQM model was created by the European Foundation for Quality
Management, to help various organisations establish a management system that
allowed them to continuously move towards excellence. To this end, it established a set
of corporate excellence criteria that cover all operations in an organisation, as well as a
series of rules to assess the performance in each criterion (Rusjan, 2005; Westerveld,
2003; Watson and Howart, 2011).
As in other contexts, the debate on the suitability of these systems for educational
institutions arose in Spain in parallel to their implementation. Not only is this discussion
still ongoing, but it has intensified as a result of the economic crisis affecting the whole
education system, which questions whether the resources devoted to quality
management make sense. In this respect, the progressive implementation of quality
management plans or systems in educational institutions has not been accompanied, to
the same extent, by rigorous research showing whether this implementation has
produced changes over time in the schools by modifying relevant components of school
culture. It is thus necessary to expand the evidence derived from research in this regard.
The objective of this paper is precisely to contribute to these discussions, both in
Spain and in other countries, by expanding our knowledge of the effects that quality
management systems have on educational institutions. To this end, we offer the results
of a study which has attempted to establish how teachers and administrators perceive
the impact that quality management systems have had on the teaching and learning
processes in a set of primary and secondary education schools in two Spanish regions.
QAE We are more interested in assessing sustained changes over longer periods than in
24,3 measuring short-term impact.
Although the study looks at many different aspects of school life, such as
communication and information systems, management systems, external relations or
school climate, this paper only presents the results associated with the design and
development of teaching and learning processes. As learning is the core mission of
396 schools, the most important goal of any quality management system should be to
improve teaching and learning processes to achieve better results (Goldberg and Cole,
2002).

Teaching–learning processes and quality management systems

Analysing the teaching–learning processes that take place in schools is a difficult task,
as pedagogical practices are the result of the organisation and interrelation of various
factors, such as teacher–student communication, knowledge to be transmitted, skills to
be enhanced, use of educational resources or the assessment systems used, just to
mention a few. Furthermore, these practices are embedded in the school culture and
teaching traditions (Bellei, 2001; MacNeil, Prater, and Busch, 2009), which explains why
they are difficult to modify. The shift by teachers towards pedagogical practices that
focus more on learning achievement is still an issue which is difficult to understand and
resolve, as shown by the failure of many teaching improvement programmes or
curricular reforms designed by the education authorities (Dumay, 2009; Sarason, 2003;
Peterson and Deal, 2009; Zembylas, 2009). Moreover, learning is the result of a complex
mix of cognitive motivational, affective and contextual variables, with the influence of
families and the social environment playing an important role. The complexity of the
learning processes is also the reason for the failure of many reform programmes that
focus only on the quality of teaching. They wrongly assume that teaching quality
guarantees learning quality, when the complete teaching–learning process should be
taken into account.
Even without going into the specific definition of quality in the areas of teaching,
learning or teaching–learning processes, which are highly elusive and multidimensional
concepts (Race, 1993), it is obvious that they cannot be understood outside the context of
the school. In fact, we have known for a long time now that school management
characteristics, organisation and processes are decisive in determining school results
(Elmore, 1995), even though the specific nature of the relations that exist between the
different variables is difficult to grasp. A whole line of research was developed several
decades ago providing evidence on the importance of the school for student academic
performance. For example, we know that there is a significant relation between school
leadership focused on continuous improvement and student learning levels (Hallinger
and Heckb, 2010; Marzano et al., 2005), as well as work by teachers to create the right
classroom environment (Mehra and Rhee, 2009). School climate and family cooperation
with the school also have an impact on student learning (Brookover and Schneider, 1975;
Brookover et al., 1978; MacNeil, Prater and Busch, 2009). In addition, schools with the
best results are the ones that work to improve the performance of all students because
they consider it to be their core mission and there is no reason to believe a certain
percentage of failure is inevitable.
At present, many schools apply quality management systems to their daily activities
(Hopkins, 2005). These systems, adapted to the specific objectives established by the
schools as well as to their “customers” and “suppliers” (Lunenburg, 2010; Senlle and Impact of
Stol, 1994), are an attempt to establish systematic, structured and continuous quality quality
assurance processes to ensure their sustainability and improvement. As the main
objective of a school is to guarantee student learning, one of the essential purposes of
systems
school quality assurance systems is to ensure that all activities performed are focused on
obtaining high levels of student performance. Furthermore, given that quality can always
be improved, the purpose of a quality management system is also to create a continuous 397
improvement culture in the school. Thus, we can say that beyond the tangible results
achieved in the short term, it is advisable to look at the impact of the quality management
system on the school with regard to learning processes which the system generates in the
organisation (Harvey and Newton, 2004).
It is, therefore, important to assess whether the application of quality management
systems leads schools to adopt an “evaluative culture”, which implies changing the
schools’ daily practices to include a series of assessment strategies and procedures
which enhance their continuous development. Specifically, they should be designed to
help the school function as a dynamic organisation immersed in a constant learning
process (De Miguel and Apodaca, 2009). In other words, once the quality management
system has been set up, an evaluation must be made to see whether systematised
assessment processes have been put in place to develop the school itself. Instead of
merely looking at the bureaucratic changes made by those in charge of the management
systems, it is necessary to analyse whether there have been changes in the curricula, in
the teaching–learning methods, in the assessment processes, in the use of educational
resources, etc., and what the effectiveness of these changes has been. As pointed out by
Senge et al. (2000), schools that learn and improve are those that approach change
systematically and those where transformation can be longer-lasting.

Objectives
The aim of the study is to conduct an analysis of possible relevant and long-lasting
changes in teaching–learning methodologies by taking an in-depth look at managers’
and teachers’ perceptions of the evolution and improvements experienced in the school
thanks to the continuous application of quality management systems.
Other secondary objectives of this study were:
• Design and validate a questionnaire to understand how teachers and managers
perceive the impact of the school’s quality management system on the work
methodologies in the classroom.
• Analyse the differences in the assessments by respondents, considering the
diverse characteristics of schools and teachers.

Methodology
Design
This is a survey study (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001, p. 304-306). As independent
variables cannot be manipulated, events occur naturally and then they are analysed.
Analysing the transformation of schools and, more specifically, evaluating the
changes that occur in them in relation to teaching and learning after implementing
quality management systems is a complex task. As a first approach to this issue, this
paper analyses the perceptions of managers and teachers on the impact that these
systems have had on teaching–learning processes in their schools. While there is a risk
QAE with this approach that such perceptions do not match the actual output produced by
24,3 quality management systems, it can serve as an initial step towards assessing their
impact on schools. Perceptions and beliefs of teachers are widely used in educational
research, despite the limitations that they may entail (Pajares, 1992). Specifically, in
relation to teaching–learning processes, there is widespread agreement that the
perceptions and judgements of teachers affect their behaviour and practices in the
398 classroom (Donovan and Bransford, 2005; Tobin et al., 1994). Thus, recent studies aimed
at examining teaching and learning processes in schools; for example, the OECD
Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) analysed teachers’ perceptions
based on the premise that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are important for
understanding and improving such processes (OECD, 2010).
In addition, when addressing the issue of the implementation of quality management
systems in education, it is particularly important to consider the perception of those
involved because, as Sallis (2002) stated, quality management systems require that
everybody in the organisation be involved in the continuous improvement endeavour.
To achieve the goal, the staff need to understand and internalise the message of the
quality management system. However, research on teachers’ and managers’ perceptions
of these systems in primary and secondary schools is scarce and more evidence must
thus be gathered (Ah-Teck and Starr, 2013; Cheng and Yau, 2011; Yau and Cheng, 2013).
To assess whether the implementation of quality management systems has
contributed to a change in “culture” in the institutions regarding teaching–learning
processes, this paper analysed the perception of the people involved in those processes
(Cardoso et al., 2013; Rosa et al., 2006). Although this approach was more indirect than an
analysis of students’ academic performance, focussing on teacher perceptions was a
first step towards evaluating them, as it provided information on changes in the
teaching–learning processes experienced by teachers.

Participants
Once the design of the questionnaire was completed, we selected a series of schools in
two different regions (Communities of Madrid and Castilla y León) that met our selection
criteria and were willing to participate in the study.
Two basic requirements were established to select schools and subjects: the schools
had to have had a quality management system in place for at least three years and only
teachers or members of management who had also been in the school for at least three
years could participate in the study.
Once the schools were selected (incidental sampling), we presented the study to three
main groups in the schools: the management team, members of the quality team and
teachers. The participation of the sample groups was also voluntary. The aim was to
determine whether there were significant differences in the perceptions of each group.
Data were compiled and read with an optical reader, which helped speed up the
process. A qualitative evaluation was also conducted, which included an analysis of the
documents used to implement the quality management system (Self-Evaluations,
External Evaluations, Improvement Activities […]), as well as a discussion group with
representatives of the school’s management team, the quality department and the
teaching staff. The discussion group was used to complete the information obtained
using the questionnaire. Information was gathered on the implementation process itself,
related strengths and problems and how the quality culture was incorporated into the Impact of
school’s general processes. quality
The study included 29 primary and secondary education schools in two Spanish
regions (Autonomous Community of Castilla-León and Autonomous Community of
systems
Madrid), of which 51.9 per cent were public schools, 14.8 per cent private and 33.3 per
cent private schools subsidised with public funds. As the objective was to understand
how the respondents perceived the impact, over time, of implementing quality 399
management systems, only schools that had been using a system of this type for at least
three years were selected. Specifically, the average implementation of these systems in
the schools was eight years. Most schools work with the EFQM model, while a small
proportion of the sample uses minor adaptations of the EFQM model.
With regard to school size (Lee et al., 2000), the sample comprised 7.9 per cent small
schools (with fewer than 250 students), 22.4 per cent medium (with 250 to 500 students),
13.3 per cent medium-large (with 501 to 750 students), 20.2 per cent large (with 751 to
1,000 students) and 36.2 per cent very large schools (with over 1,000 students). By
number of teachers (Cuevas et al., 2008), we classified schools into small (with fewer than
30 teachers), or 17.5 per cent of the sample; medium (30 to 50 teachers), comprising 26.1
per cent; and large (over 50 teachers), which made up 56.3 per cent.
The participants who completed the evaluation questionnaires totalled 709 subjects (85
per cent teachers, 15 per cent managers), with an average age of 43.5 years (SD ⫽ 10.35).

Measurement instruments
To conduct this study, a questionnaire was designed to gather information on the staff’s
perception of the impact that quality management systems have had on the teaching–
learning processes in their schools. In fact, one of the secondary objectives of this study
was to design a sound measurement tool, based on the definition of the impact of these
systems on the methodological aspects of classroom work. This tool would need to fulfil
the technical characteristics required to evaluate such a construct and also help identify
the relations that may exist between the observable and underlying dimensions of the
variables used in the study.
To achieve this, we used a Likert-type scale with items referring to the teaching–
learning processes, and the subjects replied based on their opinion, situation, knowledge
or attitude. Five possible answers were given for each item, where 1 was the lowest score
and 5 was the highest.
The variable we wanted to study (dependent variable) was the assessment of the impact
on teaching–learning processes of implementing a quality management system in schools.
To better define the dependent variable, we created the following sub-dimensions of
evaluation, which were then made operative in the questionnaire items shown in Table II.
The sub-dimensions were established taking into account those included in the quality
assurance systems in their methodology section, which included assessment models for
efficient schools (Creemers and Reezigt, 1999; Kyriakides and Creemers, 2008; Creemers Bert
and Kyriakides, 2011) as well as those establishing the teaching–learning educational
models (Estévez, 2002; Marchesi and Martín, 1998; Ghaith, 2003; Kerr et al., 2004; Finnan
et al., 2003). The final sub-dimensions were as follows:
• Analysis of Student Performance: Existence of established strategies to identify
and analyse student performance as an objective element for evaluation and
improvement of school results.
QAE • Appreciation of Student Attitudes and Values: Recognition of attitudes and values
24,3 acquired by students.
• Family Involvement: Design and development of teaching and learning processes
to enhance family involvement in school life and encourage their commitment
with the teaching process, monitoring students’ homework.
400 • Teaching Methodology: Existence of diverse teaching methodologies, adapted to
the various student needs and their assessment to contribute to student learning.
• Assessment: Existence of systematic assessment processes and use of different
methods to improve student learning achievements.
• Tutoring: Existence of relevant tutoring actions for comprehensive and
personalised student education, which goes beyond content and instruction.
• General Assessment of the Dimension.

The questionnaire included a series of category variables to analyse the possible

differences between dependent variables and help with the interpretation of the results:
• school ownership;
• autonomous community;
• years the quality management system has been in place;
• number of teachers in the school;
• number of students in the school; and
• differences between the viewpoints of teachers and the management team.

Once the dimension, sub-dimensions, items and category variables were defined based
on a detailed study of the theoretical references available to more accurately establish
the construct being studied, it was validated by experts. We selected academic
specialists in the area of school quality management (school headmasters with extensive
experience in the implementation of quality management systems, university
professors with expertise in education quality and standardised quality certification
programmes [EFQM] at schools) and we asked them to assess the clarity and relevance
of each item included in the dimension analysed. This enabled us to define our
instrument more clearly by adding, changing or removing items. The aim was to
strengthen the validation of the theoretical construct through the questionnaire and its
robustness with relation to its match with the theoretical references studied.

Reliability analysis
To study the instrument’s reliability (George and Mallery, 1995), we used the statistical
package SPSS v 20.0, with Cronbach’s alpha, which is the most widely used coefficient
for this type of analysis. This coefficient determines the internal consistency of the scale.
The calculation of the overall alpha and for the sub-dimensions (scales) of the
instrument is provided in Table I, as well as the homogeneity indexes, which are
considered acceptable, as they range from 0.488 to 0.830, with the majority being around
0.6. This indicates they all contributed to what the questionnaire was measuring and
also in the same direction. Removing any of the items would not affect the instrument’s
reliability.
 In conclusion, the instrument used in this study has a very high reliability, with Impact of
Cronbach’s ␣ ⫽ 0.966 (George and Mallery, 1995). quality
systems
Results
Descriptive overview
Table II shows the descriptive analysis of the results obtained for the teachers’
perception of the impact on teaching–learning processes in their schools: 401
The overall score was medium-high, with an average of 3.5 on a scale from 1 to 5, with
1 being the lowest score and 5 the highest, which indicated that, according to the
respondents, the impact this implementation has had on teaching–learning processes in
the schools has been significant.
The standard deviations (0.94 minimum and 1.37 maximum) can be defined as
average heterogeneity values.
Below is a detailed analysis of each sub-dimension.
For the sub-dimension that analysed the impact of the system in relation to Student
Performance (Items 1 to 3), we found that a high percentage of teachers were grouped
around 4 on the scale. Thus, a large share of the sample considered that, as a
consequence of applying a quality management system, the following were true: the
school analyses external assessments on student academic performance ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.7, with
a 44 per cent frequency of Score 4), support measures are provided for students with
lower than required academic performance ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.6, with a 39 per cent frequency of
Score 4) and decisions are made regularly and action plans are implemented regarding
student performance assessments ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.4, with a 37 per cent frequency of Score 4).
For the sub-dimension Appreciation of Student Attitudes and Values for their
recognition in activities and assessments (Items 4 to 5), we found, as in the previous
sub-dimension, that a high percentage of teachers assigned it a 4 on the scale ( Xˉ ⫽ 3.55,
with a 39.5 per cent frequency of Score 4, averaging both items), although it should be
noted that for Item 5 which referred to assessment of student attitudes in final grades, 12
per cent of those in the sample considered that they were not taken into account.
In Family Involvement in Teaching-Learning Processes (Items 6 to 8), we discovered
a significant change compared to the previous sub-dimensions. Although the great
majority of teachers believed that, after implementing the quality management system,
there was an information process for families on student performance ( X ˉ ⫽ 4, with a 73

Homogeneity
No. of Cronbach’s indexes
Scales items ␣ Lowest Highest

1. Analysis of student performance (1-3) 3 0.852 0.685 0.777

2. Appreciation of student attitudes and values (4-5) 2 0.686 0.522 0.522
3. Family involvement (6-8) 3 0.788 0.548 0.776
4. Teaching methodology (9-13) 5 0.901 0.698 0.828 Table I.
5. Assessment (14-21) 8 0.904 0.648 0.788 Analysis of
6. Tutoring (22-24) 3 0.893 0.687 0.867 instrument
7. General assessment of the dimension (25) 1 reliability:
Total 25 0.966 0.488 0.830 Cronbach’s ␣
QAE % score
24,3 Items 1 2 3 4 5 ␹ S

As a result of implementation of the quality management plan

1. Action plans are prepared based on student
assessment sessions 4.1 18 26 37 15 3.4 1.07
402 2. The results obtained by students in
external tests are analysed 3.2 8.6 22 44 22 3.7 1
3. Measures are taken for students with lower
performance levels 5 10 28 39 18 3.6 1.06
4. Student attitudes and values are
considered, systematically, for their
participation in activities (school trips,
student exchange, positions of
responsibility, etc.) 5.2 12 25 43 15 3.5 1.05
5. The final grades include student values and
attitudes 12 7.1 18 36 27 3.6 1.28
6. The school follows a family involvement
policy that strives for their commitment
with their children’s teaching–learning
process 5 11 31 35 17 3.5 1.06
7. There is a systematised information
procedure to inform families of their
children’s continuous performance
evolution 3.7 6.4 17 30 43 4 1.1
8. Family participation and involvement at
school is systematically evaluated to
enhance their engagement 14 18 30 26 12 3 1.22
9. Teaching methodologies used by teachers
are systematically assessed 15 17 33 27 8.4 3 1.18
10. Teachers have a common methodology
defined by areas and education cycles 5.6 21 27 33 13 3.3 1.11
11. Teachers study the most appropriate
teaching methodology for students with
special educational support needs 6 13 29 34 18 3.5 1.1
12. Flexible groups are set up for core subjects
based on the pace of student learning 21 17 22 24 15 3 1.37
13. Teachers have increased student
motivation thanks to methods used 15 10 33 32 10 3.1 1.18
14. Design of curricular reinforcement and
adaptation plans is based on assessment 5 9.6 22 42 22 3.7 1.07
15. An initial assessment is conducted at the
start of each education cycle to determine
each student’s level 4.4 7.7 15 34 39 4 1.11
16. The school systematically prepares student
assessment reports at the end of each stage
(primary, secondary, etc.) 11 4.8 12 24 48 3.9 1.34
17. Assessment criteria are specified taking
into account improvement of learning
Table II. achievements 2.9 6.5 27 36 27 3.8 1.01
Study items (continued)
 % score
Impact of
Items 1 2 3 4 5 ␹ S quality
systems
18. Assessment criteria are clearly specified for
awareness of audiences involved (parents,
students, etc.) 2.1 5.7 17 40 36 4 0.97
19. Students can access and review all
activities carried out to evaluate their
403
knowledge 2.6 5.6 16 36 40 4.1 1.01
20. The school conducts regular evaluations of
the assessment systems applied by
teachers 13 13 25 33 16 3.3 1.25
21. Assessment methods are changed, if
necessary, after their evaluation 11 11 23 35 19 3.4 1.24
22. Tutoring activities are aimed at
comprehensive education and personalised
attention for students 3.2 5.7 24 30 37 3.9 1.06
23. Tutoring activities conducted in the school
are systematically assessed 11 12 23 31 23 3.4 1.26
24. Decisions are made based on the
assessments conducted to improve the
tutoring action plan 12 9.6 23 35 21 3.4 1.25
25. Provide your assessment, overall, of the
impact the implementation of the quality
plan has had on the teaching–learning
process in your school 3.6 8.3 30 46 12 3.6 0.94
␹ 3.548 Table II.

per cent frequency of Scores 3 and 4) and a policy of family involvement in teaching–
learning processes was applied ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.5, with a 35 per cent frequency of Score 4), most
of the sample considered that family participation in the school was not always assessed
ˉ ⫽ 3, with a 62 per cent accumulated frequency in Scores 1 to 3).
in order to improve it ( X
When analysing the homogeneity indexes of the items shown in Table I, it is precisely
this item which had the lowest “corrected item-total correlation”, although deleting it
would not alter the reliability indexes.
One of the most relevant sub-dimensions in the study was Teaching Methodology
(Items 9 to 13), which, in this case, had the lowest score in the whole questionnaire with
an average of 3.18. In the opinion of teachers, the schools in the sample defined, in
general, a common teaching methodology ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.3) and they study appropriate
methodologies for students with special educational needs ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.5), but, in the majority
of the cases, the teaching methods applied were not assessed ( X ˉ ⫽ 3, with a 65 per cent
accumulated frequency in Scores 1 to 3). Furthermore, a large group of teachers
considered that use of flexible groups in core subjects continued to be limited ( X ˉ ⫽ 3,
with a 60 per cent accumulated frequency in Scores 1 to 3, although with a standard
deviation of 1.37), and most teachers considered that the methodology used was not very
motivating for the students ( Xˉ ⫽ 3.1, with a 58 per cent accumulated frequency in Scores
1 to 3).
QAE The sub-dimension related to Assessment as a tool to improve learning (Items 14 to
24,3 21) obtained the best average of all those measured by the questionnaire ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.78).
After implementing the quality management system, the great majority of the teachers
in the sample considered that students accessed and reviewed the activities assessed
ˉ ⫽ 4.1 with a 76 per cent accumulated frequency in Scores 4 to 5), an initial cycle
(X
assessment was conducted ( X ˉ ⫽ 4, with a 73 per cent accumulated frequency in Scores
404 ˉ ⫽ 4 with a 76 per cent
4 to 5) and assessment criteria were clearly specified ( X
accumulated frequency in Scores 4 to 5). A more heterogeneous score (standard
deviation of 1.25) corresponded to the evaluation of the assessment systems (Item 20
with X ˉ ⫽ 3.3) which showed that there was a certain dispersion when it came to
evaluating the assessment systems implemented in each school.
The sub-dimension related to Tutoring as a teaching methodology to support
personalisation of the teaching–learning processes (Items 22 to 24) obtained a
comparatively high score ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.57). The three items clearly reflected the
sub-dimension average, although Item 22 stood out because the respondents believed
that, thanks to the implementation of the quality management system, tutoring
activities were aimed at comprehensive education and personalised attention for
ˉ ⫽ 3.9, with a 67 per cent accumulated frequency in Scores 4 and 5).
students ( X
Finally, Item 26, which referred to overall Level of Impact of the Quality Management
System on the Teaching-Learning Processes, obtained a relevant score, coinciding with
the average of the previous sub-dimensions ( X ˉ ⫽ 3.6, with a 88 per cent accumulated
frequency in Scores 3 and 5).

Differential overview
Tables III and IV show the results of the differential analyses used to identify to what
extent the variables were related to the perception of the impact of quality management
systems on teaching–learning processes (Dim.) and on each sub-dimension (Sub.). For
this, we used two well-known statistical tests: the Student’s t and single-factor analysis
of variance (ANOVA), both for independent groups (together with the Scheffé test for
post hoc multiple comparisons). Given the sample size, we chose to use the Scheffé
statistics, as this was deemed more appropriate, more powerful and accurate, and
because the conclusions and decisions would be more consistent (McMillan and
Schumacher, 2001, p. 374).
Likewise, we conducted a multivariate ANOVA (Hair et al., 2004), to analyse both the
main effects of all independent variables on the dependent variables, as well as the
effects of their interaction, and in some dependent variables, we obtained two or three
binary interactions and some tertiary. In all of them, the effect size was insignificant and
we therefore decided to present the simple ANOVA, as they were more consistent.
␩2 is used as a measure of the effect size for independent samples, knowing that a
statistically significant F ratio, which is likely with large samples (709 participants in
our study), gives us the confidence to conclude that there are differences, but this does
not say anything about the significance or magnitude of these differences. This
information is given by ␩2 (expressing a quantity, not a probability), and it is the effect
size which allows us to reach the conclusion obtained by the F-value, which is
characteristic of variance analysis. Focusing on ␩2, we can see that the proportion of
variance in the dependent variable (the impact of the implementation of a system of
 ANOVA – Type of school ANOVA – Years of QMS ANOVA – Number of
Impact of
(p ⬍ 0.01) (p ⬍ 0.01) teachers (p ⬍ 0.01) quality
Sub Item F Significance ␩ 2 F Significance ␩ 2 F Significance ␩ 2 systems
1 1 50.498 0.000 0.130 3.480 0.016 0.016 16.267 0.000 0.046
2 1.808 0.165 0.005 4.486 0.004 0.021 1.483 0.228 0.004
3 36.270 0.000 0.097 0.778 0.506 0.004 2.932 0.054 0.009
2 4 10.479 0.000 0.031 4.156 0.006 0.019 0.413 0.662 0.001
405
5 101.850 0.000 0.233 15.879 0.000 0.069 8.023 0.000 0.023
3 6 18.644 0.000 0.053 1.955 0.119 0.009 1.054 0.349 0.003
7 15.764 0.000 0.045 5.423 0.001 0.025 7.989 0.000 0.023
8 85.625 0.000 0.208 6.258 0.000 0.029 10.897 0.000 0.032
4 9 53.282 0.000 0.138 10.308 0.000 0.047 14.381 0.000 0.042
10 35.550 0.000 0.097 3.549 0.014 0.017 4.930 0.007 0.015
11 26.258 0.000 0.073 2.836 0.037 0.013 5.161 0.006 0.015
12 76.692 0.000 0.190 7.048 0.000 0.033 3.766 0.024 0.011
13 81.760 0.000 0.197 11.232 0.000 0.050 5.907 0.003 0.017
5 14 21.513 0.000 0.061 5.301 0.001 0.025 2.194 0.112 0.007
15 17.504 0.000 0.050 5.689 0.001 0.026 1.733 0.178 0.005
16 93.641 0.000 0.222 16.904 0.000 0.075 10.467 0.000 0.031
17 21.363 0.000 0.061 1.368 0.252 0.007 4.349 0.013 0.013
18 17.215 0.000 0.049 0.413 0.744 0.002 4.753 0.009 0.014
19 8.324 0.000 0.024 1.102 0.348 0.005 1.791 0.168 0.005
20 59.362 0.000 0.153 5.862 0.001 0.027 12.055 0.000 0.035
21 72.214 0.000 0.179 9.209 0.000 0.042 16.882 0.000 0.049
6 22 42.541 0.000 0.114 3.380 0.018 0.016 2.316 0.099 0.007
23 72.094 0.000 0.180 8.032 0.000 0.037 5.569 0.004 0.017 Table III.
24 96.677 0.000 0.234 9.458 0.000 0.045 6.810 0.001 0.021 Differentials of study
7 25 40.835 0.000 0.111 1.049 0.370 0.005 1.309 0.271 0.004 items (Part 1)

quality management on the process of learning) was explained by the independent

variable studied. For example, when the differential analysis was done on the variable
“Type of School”, Item 5 (F ⫽ 101,850; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩2 ⫽ 0.233) was highlighted,
explaining 23.3 per cent of the variance in the differences between public, private and
charter schools.

Differences associated to the region (autonomous community)

The variable “Autonomous Community” of the schools participating in the study
(Student’s t – ␣ ⱕ 0.01) showed that the differences had very clear significant values in
all items, and they were consistent across all dimensions. Items of note included:
• Item 8 (t ⫽ 10.360; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.141), which determined whether the centre
evaluates family participation and involvement;
• Item 16 (t ⫽ 8.722; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.103), which dealt with preparation of reports
at the end of the assessment; and
• Item 13 (t ⫽ 8.312; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.094), referring to an increase in student
motivation thanks to the methodology used.
QAE ANOVA – Number of Student’s t-regions Student’s t-position
24,3 students (p ⬍ 0.01) (p ⬍ 0.01) (p ⬍ 0.01)
Sub Item F Significance ␩ 2 F Significance ␩ 2 F Significance ␩ 2

1 1 9.823 0.000 0.055 5.239 0.000 0.039 3.649 0.000 0.019

2 1.846 0.118 0.011 0.739 0.460 0.001 3.269 0.001 0.016
406 3 1.889 0.111 0.011 6.032 0.000 0.051 2.996 0.003 0.013
2 4 1.616 0.168 0.010 4.031 0.000 0.024 1.993 0.047 0.006
5 8.358 0.000 0.048 8.868 0.000 0.105 1.893 0.059 0.005
3 6 2.449 0.045 0.015 7.317 0.000 0.075 2.029 0.043 0.006
7 4.231 0.002 0.025 4.796 0.000 0.033 0.660 0.510 0.001
8 8.944 0.000 0.052 10.360 0.000 0.141 1.932 0.054 0.006
4 9 11.231 0.000 0.064 5.584 0.000 0.045 1.779 0.076 0.005
10 4.014 0.003 0.024 5.678 0.000 0.046 0.947 0.344 0.001
11 3.554 0.007 0.021 6.050 0.000 0.052 1.869 0.062 0.005
12 4.944 0.001 0.029 7.084 0.000 0.071 1.405 0.161 0.003
13 9.765 0.000 0.055 8.312 0.000 0.094 1.311 0.190 0.003
5 14 3.584 0.007 0.021 6.090 0.000 0.053 2.407 0.016 0.009
15 3.961 0.003 0.024 5.014 0.000 0.037 1.738 0.083 0.005
16 10.888 0.000 0.062 8.722 0.000 0.103 1.890 0.059 0.005
17 3.688 0.006 0.022 4.762 0.000 0.033 0.251 0.802 0.000
18 1.290 0.272 0.008 3.439 0.001 0.017 0.597 0.550 0.001
19 0.225 0.925 0.001 3.301 0.001 0.016 1.466 0.143 0.003
20 8.768 0.000 0.051 6.122 0.000 0.054 1.441 0.150 0.003
21 10.638 0.000 0.061 6.817 0.000 0.066 0.406 0.685 0.000
6 22 3.035 0.017 0.018 6.625 0.000 0.062 1.617 0.106 0.004
Table IV. 23 4.555 0.001 0.027 5.171 0.000 0.039 2.303 0.022 0.008
Differentials of study 24 7.744 0.000 0.047 6.388 0.000 0.060 2.241 0.025 0.008
items (Part 2) 7 25 1.256 0.286 0.008 5.200 0.000 0.039 2.091 0.037 0.007

Differences between teachers’ assessments in the two autonomous communities

participating in the study favoured, in all cases, the Community of Castilla y León. These
differences may be due to the fact that the Castilla y León regional government actively
promoted the implementation of the EFQM model in the schools in its regional system.
This was not the case in the Madrid Autonomous Community.

Differences associated with school characteristics

The differential analyses carried out (ANOVA – ␣ ⱕ 0.01) by the “Type of School”
variable showed clearly significant differences in nearly all the items of the
sub-dimensions. Items of note are:
• Item 5 (F ⫽ 101.850; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.233), which referred to assessment of
student attitudes in final assessments;
• Item 16 (F ⫽ 93.641; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.222), which dealt with preparation of
reports at the end of the assessment; and
• Item 8 (F ⫽ 85.625; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.208), which determined whether the centre
evaluated family involvement in teaching – learning processes.
These significant differences indicated that perception of the impact of implementing a Impact of
quality management system on teaching – learning processes differed among teachers quality
working in different types of schools, with teachers of subsidised private school giving systems
the highest scores, followed by public school teachers and, finally, private school
teachers.
Differential analyses (ANOVA – ␣ ⱕ 0.01) by “Years of Implementation of the
Quality Management System” tried to identify whether there were significant 407
differences between teachers of those schools which had been implementing the quality
system over a longer period compared to those that had less experience. In this respect,
the significance of the differences found in the questionnaire items was highly scattered
and lower than expected. We can highlight the following:
• Item 16 (F ⫽ 16.904; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.075), dealing with the preparation of reports
at the end of the assessment;
• Item 5 (F ⫽ 15.879; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.069), which refers to recognition of student
attitudes in final assessments;
• Item 13 (F ⫽ 11.232; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.050), referring to an increase in student
motivation thanks to the methodology used; and
• Item 9 (F ⫽ 10.308; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.047), which determines whether teaching
methodologies conducted in the school were evaluated.

Although most of the items show significant differences with regard to the number of
years the quality management system has been in place, values of ␩ 2 showed that the
relationship between these variables was not relevant.
The differential study of the questionnaire items related to “Number of Teachers”
(ANOVA – ␣ ⱕ 0.01) also showed equally dispersed and rather irregular data. The
following items should be noted:
• Item 21 (F ⫽ 16,882; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.049), which determined whether evaluative
methodologies were assessed and modified according to results;
• Item 1 (F ⫽ 16.267; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.046), whether there were action plans based
on student assessment sessions;
• Item 9 (F ⫽ 14.381; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.042), which studied whether teacher
methodologies undertaken at the school were evaluated; and
• Item 20 (F ⫽ 12.055; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.035), which looked at whether the school
conducted a regular evaluation of the assessment systems applied by teachers.

Except for these items, the significance of the analyses carried out by size of teaching
staff was not relevant considering their ␩ 2 values, and this variable thus had a limited
relation with the assessment of the impact of the quality management system on
teaching – learning processes.
The differential analysis conducted (ANOVA – ␣ ⱕ 0.01) for “School size by number
of students” also provided highly dispersed data with limited significance, except for
one of the sub-dimensions studied: “Teaching Methodology”. This was one of the most
important parts of teaching – learning processes and the items comprising it were found
to be significant. The items which stood out in this analysis were:
QAE • Item 9 (F ⫽ 11.231; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.064), which studied whether teacher
24,3 methodologies carried out at the school were evaluated;
• Item 16 (F ⫽ 10.888; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.062), dealing with preparation of reports at
the end of the assessment; and
• Item 21 (F ⫽ 10.638; p ⫽ 0.000; ␩ 2 ⫽ 0.061), which determined whether evaluative
408 methodologies were assessed and modified based on the results.

For all of them, school size, based on the number of students, was a significant factor,
with the impact of quality management systems on teaching – learning processes
related to teaching methodologies being more significant in schools with between 500
and 750 students, according to the teachers’ assessments.

Differences associated with teacher characteristics

The last differential analysis conducted (Student’s t – ␣ ⱕ 0.01) introduces the variable
“Position” in the school of the person completing the questionnaire, distinguishing
between teachers and members of the management team. In this respect, we found
limited significant results, except in the sub-dimension related to “Analysis of Student
Results”, where there were significant differences, although not very relevant.
Therefore, we conclude that there were no overall differences between the views of
teachers and the management teams regarding the impact of the quality management
system on teaching – learning processes.
Although the effect size of the differential studies was not large, it was possible to
confirm the associations found between the variables studied and the perception of the
impact which quality management systems had on teaching – learning processes, given
the high value of the statistics that determine the relationship between the equality of
means variables (F and t) and the high level of significance found, ␣ ⱕ 0.01.

Discussion and conclusions

First, it should be noted that this paper was part of a broader study that looked at other
dimensions in schools where a quality management system could have an impact.
Implementation of quality management systems in schools should lead to internal
improvement processes which engage the whole education community in achieving the
highest performance levels in each area of intervention. With regard to the dimension of
teaching – learning processes, this study confirmed that in the opinion of teachers and
managers, there were considerable improvements in some of the aspects of this
construct.
For the “Analysis of Student Performance” sub-dimension, teachers valued
positively the implementation of a quality management system and considered that had
an evident impact on the support measures implemented and on the action plans derived
from student assessments. They also considered that one of the strong points of quality
management systems in educational institutions was stable assessment guidelines that
helped determine areas for improvement. In the teaching – learning processes, student
performance assessments and establishing activities that improved both final learning
outcomes as well as measures to address diversity aimed at students with special
educational needs seemed to provide evidence of the impact of a quality management
model.
 Likewise, appreciation of Attitudes and Values to undertake activities and Impact of
assessments was a sub-dimension that achieved notable scores in this study. The quality
assessment of the impact on this sub-dimension caused by the implementation of a systems
quality management system indicated that educational institutions must ensure that the
way they work has an impact, not only on conceptual and procedural content (what
students know and do), but also on the activities conducted outside the classroom and
which allow students to acquire attitudes, values, standards and behaviours which are 409
respectful and ethical (who students are).
In the sub-dimension related to family involvement in teaching – learning processes,
we found that the assessment of the impact of implementing quality management plans
in schools was not significant and, therefore, this was an aspect which needed to be
improved. The study has shown that parent participation in school activities, including
the teaching – learning processes carried out in the classrooms, was important in
improving performance (Flecha, 2012). However, in the teachers’ opinion, the
educational institutions selected for this study were not able to establish efficient action
plans in this area, despite having quality management systems in place for some time.
One of the most important aspects of the teaching – learning processes was the
Teaching Methodology. The results obtained in this study on this variable indicated that
quality management systems seemed to have very little effect on improving actions in
this area, as, if we look at teachers’ responses, they did not lead to more thorough
assessments of the teaching methodologies applied at the school or the use of flexible
groups and methodologies that motivated students. One of the most criticised aspects of
the quality management systems used in schools was that they focus essentially on
improving management, administration and coordination, rather than dealing with
strictly educational issues. This study seemed to partly corroborate this idea, at least in
relation to teachers’ perceptions about change in the teaching methodologies used.
In contrast to the above, the implementation of quality management systems
received a better score on the “Assessment” sub-dimension. Aspects such as
determination of assessment criteria, development of continuous assessment, starting
with the initial diagnosis of student competences and knowledge or access and review
by students of the activities assessed were elements that had improved with the
implementation and development of quality management plans, according to the
teachers. This improvement seemed to affect processes developed by the school, as well
as those associated with the assessment of student learning, needs and difficulties.
In addition to the above, there was also a positive assessment of the impact in
“Tutoring” activities aimed at determining student competences, their motivations and
difficulties.
An analysis of the variables that could make differences in the assessment of the
impact of implementation of quality management systems on teaching – learning
processes showed that “Type of School” was a relevant factor, being teachers of
subsidised private schools, those who gave the highest scores. It would be logical to
expect a higher score in private schools, given that they were in a more open and
competitive education market and their educational results were crucial for their own
future and that of their workers. It would be very interesting to conduct an in-depth
study of the underlying reasons for these results, and this encourages us to pursue
further research.
QAE For the variable “Years of Implementation of the Quality Management System”, the
24,3 results of the study indicated that the assessment of the impact did not change as a
function of the length of time the plan had been in place, as no significant differences
were observed between teachers’ assessments of the schools with fewer years of
implementation and those with more. However, as mentioned previously, they have all
had a management system in place for at least three years.
410 Given that the most relevant aspects of teaching – learning processes are essentially
contained in the work of teachers and students in the classroom, the variables “Number
of Teachers” and “Number of Students in the School” were not very relevant in relation
to the impact of implementing a management system, except in certain specific areas.
This is similar to the findings in other studies (Pustjens et al., 2008; Ma and Klinger,
2000). It is possible that the perception of the impact of quality management plans on
teaching – learning processes varied more depending on the number of students in a
classroom than the size of the school itself.
The Autonomous Community where the school is located shows significant
differences, with the teachers from the centres in Castilla y León being those that valued
more positively the impact of quality management systems on teaching – learning
processes. Perhaps this was due to the greater level of monitoring and attention that the
education authorities of Castilla y León devoted to quality management in the schools in
their region. In fact, teachers and managers of the schools in the Community of Madrid
stated at times that they had received little support from the authorities to start and
maintain these systems. Together with Castilla y León, other Spanish communities,
such as the Basque Country and Navarre, have also decided to apply quality
management systems following the example of countries such as the UK or Sweden,
whose school systems have increasingly adopted their own corporate management
approach (Angulo and Redón, 2012). In these communities, the Regional Ministries of
Education have promoted implementation of quality management systems and several
educational institutions, both from the public and private sectors, have even achieved
the European Quality “Q” award.
Neither were there any significant differences between managers’ and teachers’
perceptions regarding the impact that quality management systems had on teaching –
learning processes undertaken in the schools. Both managers and teachers knew and
valued, at a similar level, the impact of quality management plans, and this outcome
coincided with other studies conducted in primary and secondary schools where no
difference was found between managers and teachers in this sense (Koral, 2003; Ford,
1998). This issue is different from the results obtained in higher education, where scores
given by managers and those responsible for quality assurance systems are more
frequently higher than in other sectors (Rosa et al., 2006; Stensaker et al., 2011; Cheng
and Yau, 2011). A possible hypothesis is that in higher education very often, quality
management systems have been implemented due to external pressure or obligations
and not at the initiative of the institutions themselves, as is the case of the schools which
participated in this study. If this hypothesis should prove to be true, we could conclude
that the beneficial effects of implementing quality management systems are lost, at least
partly, when they are imposed by school authorities and it is thus important to convince
school managers and teachers to implement them rather than make them compulsory.
Recognising the merit of the schools that apply these plans and sharing good practices
could be useful strategies in this respect.
 One of the main limitations of this research was that the assessment of the impact of Impact of
quality management systems was made based on teachers’ perceptions. Teachers’ quality
causal attributions can be biased, something that is well-documented in research on
social cognition (Fiske and Taylor, 1991). As in previous studies, an additional difficulty
systems
of evaluating the implementation of quality management systems came from the fact
that they were mostly based on ex post facto studies. A scientific evaluation capable of
identifying the effects of individual changes would require an initial evaluation prior to 411
implementing the model, followed by procedural evaluations and, finally, an evaluation
of the impact caused several years after the programme was launched. In other words,
longitudinal studies would have to be carried out to identify the actual changes caused
by the implementation of the model. Other limitations come from the size and incidence
of the sample. It would be necessary to expand the sample, not only in size but also the
territory covered, to improve the quality of the inferences drawn and allow more
advanced multivariate studies that could delve more deeply into the differential effects
at the various levels of analysis (region, school and teachers).
Despite this, the paper contributes to the evaluation of quality management systems
in education and the results obtained recommend pursuing further research on the
implementation of these systems which have an impact on improving teaching –
learning processes. The long-term impact must also be studied because, although
certain aspects in the teaching – learning processes have improved in the opinion of
teachers, it is important to delve into teaching methodologies as a relevant aspect of this
dimension in which the study has found no evidence of impact.
In summary, we can say that teachers’ perceptions have provided some evidence that
quality management systems do have a positive impact on teaching – learning
processes in certain areas. However, schools need to launch more specific changes
related to teaching methodologies to achieve improvements in the acquisition of
competences, the motivation to learn and family collaboration and involvement in the
teaching – learning process.

References
Ah-Teck, J.C. and Starr, K. (2013), “Principals’ perceptions of quality in Mauritian schools using
the Baldrige framework”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 680-704.
Angulo, F. and Redón, S. (2012), “La educación pública en la encrucijada: la pérdida del sentido
público de la escolaridad”, Estudios Pedagógicos, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 27-46.
Bellei, C. (2001), “Ha tenido impacto la reforma educativa chilena?”, in Cox, C. (Ed.), Políticas
Educacionales en el Cambio de Siglo, La reforma del Sistema Escolar de Chile, Editorial
Universitaria, Santiago, pp. 125-209.
Brookover, W.B. and Schneider, J.M. (1975), “Academic environments and elementary schools
achievement”, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 85-91.
Brookover, W.B., Schweitzer, J.H., Schneider, J.M., Beady, C.H., Flood, P.K. and Wisenbaker, J.M.
(1978), “Elementary school social climate and school achievement”, American Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 301-318.
Cardoso, S., Rosa, M.J. and Santos, C.S. (2013), “Different academics’ characteristics, different
perceptions on quality assessment?”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 96-117.
CEDEFOP (2011), Evaluation for Improving Student Outcomes, Messages for Quality Assurance
Policies, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
QAE Chen, Y., Lyu, J. and Lin, Y. (2004), “Education improvement through ISO 9000 implementation:
experiences in Taiwan”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 20 No. 1,
24,3 pp. 91-95.
Cheng, A.L.F. and Yau, H.K. (2011), “Principals’ and teachers’ perceptions of quality management
in Hong Kong primary schools”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 170-186.
Creemers Bert and Kyriakides (2011), “Using educational effectiveness research to design
412 theory-driven: evaluation aiming to improve quality of education”, available at: www.
ivalua.cat/documents/1/19_10_2011_15_49_19_Ponencia_Taula1_Creemers_Kiriakidis.
pdf
Creemers and Reezigt (1999), “The role of school and classroom climate in elementary school
learning environments”, in Freiberg, H.J. (Ed.), School Climate: Measuring, Improving and
Sustaining Healthy Learning Environments, Falmer Press, PA, pp. 30-47.
Cuevas, M., Díaz, F. and Hidalgo, V. (2008), “Liderazgo de los directores y calidad de la educación.
Un estudio del perfil de los directivos en un contexto pluricultural”, Profesorado: Revista de
Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
De Miguel, M. and Apodaca, P. (2009), “Criterios para evaluar el impacto de los planes de
evaluación de la Calidad de la educación superior”, Revista de Educación, Vol. 349,
pp. 295-310.
De Vries, W. (2005), Calidad, Eficiencia y Evaluación de la Educación Superior, Netbliblo, Madrid.
Dobyns, L. and Crawford-Mason, C. (1994), Thinking About Quality: Progress, Wisdom, and the
Deming Philosophy, Random House, New York, NY.
Doherty, G.D. (2008), “On quality in education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 255-265.
Donovan, M.S. and Bransford, J. (Eds). (2005), How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and
Science in the Classroom, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Dumay, X. (2009), “Origins and consequences of schools’ organizational culture for student
achievement”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 523-555.
Elmore, R.F. (1995), “Teaching, learning and school organization: principles of practice and the
regularities of schooling”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 355-374.
Estévez (2002), Enseñar a Aprender, Estrategias Cognitivas, México D.F. Paidós, México City.
Finnan, C. Schnepel, K.C. and Anderson, L.W. (2003), “Powerful learning environments: the
critical link between school and classroom cultures”, Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 391-418.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Flecha, R. (2012), “European research, social innovation and successful cooperativist actions”,
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Ford, M.G. (1998), “A multi-site case study: total quality management within a Texas school
district”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 59 No. 4, p. 1022.
George, D. and Mallery, P. (1995), SPSS/PC ⫹ Step by: A Simple Guide and Reference, Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Belmont.
Ghaith (2003), “The relationship between forms of instruction, achievement and perceptions of
classroom climate”, Educational Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 83-93.
Gibb, J. (2003), What Impact is Implementing a Quality System Having on the Vocational
Education and Training Classroom?, National Centre for Vocational Education Research,
Leabrook.
Goldberg, J.S. and Cole, B.R. (2002), “Quality management in education: building excellence and Impact of
equity in student performance”, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 8-22.
quality
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.F., Tayham, R.I. and Black, W.C. (2004), Análisis Multivariante, Prentice
Hall, Pearson, Madrid.
systems
Hallinger, P. and Heckb, R.H. (2010), “Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning”, School Leadership and
Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 95-110. 413
Harvey, L. and Newton, J. (2006), “Transforming quality evaluation: moving on”, in
Westerheijden, D., Stensaker, B. and Rosa, M.J. (Eds), Quality Assurance in Higher
Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation, Springer, Dordrecht.
Hopkins, D. (Ed.) (2005), “The practice and theory of school improvement”, International
Handbook of Educational Change, Springer, Dordrecht.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
Kattman, R. and Johnson, F.G. (Eds) (2002), Successful Applications of Quality Systems in K-12
Schools, ASQ, Milwaukee.
Kerr, D., Irlanda, E., Lopes, J., Craig, R. and Cleaver, E. (2004), Citizenship Education Longitudinal
Study: Second Annual Report: First Longitudinal Study, National Foundation for
Educational Research, Berkshire, available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
20130401151715/, www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RB531.pdf
Koral, M.O. (2003), “A study on primary school teachers= perceptions of the total quality
management principles”, A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of Social Sciences of
Middle East Technical University, available at: http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12604768/
index.pdf
Kyriakides, L. and Creemers, B. (2008), “Using a multidimensional approach to measure the
impact of classroom-level factors upon student achievement: a study testing the validity of
the dynamic model”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 183-205.
Lee, V.E., Smerdon, B.A., Alfeld-Liro, C. and Brown, S.L. (2000), “Inside small and large high
schools: Curriculum and social relations”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 147-171.
Lunenburg, F.C. (2010), “Total quality management applied to schools”, Schooling, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 1-6, available at: www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/
Lunenburg,%20Fred%20C.%20Total%20Quality%20Management%20Applied%20to
%20Schools%20Schooling%20V1%20N1%202010.pdf
Ma, X. and Klinger, D.A. (2000), “Hierarchical linear modeling of student and school effects on
academic achievement”, Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. (2001), Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction,
Longman, New York, NY.
MacNeil, A.J., Prater, D.L. and Busch, S. (2009), “The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement”, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 73-84.
Marchesi, M. and Martín, E. (1998), Calidad de la Enseñanza en Tiempos de Cambio, Psicología
and Educación, España, Madrid.
Martínez, C. and Rioperez, N. (2005), “El modelo de excelencia en la EFQM y su aplicación para la
mejora de la calidad de los centros educativos”, Educación, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 35-65.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T. and McNulty, B.A. (2005), School Leadership that Works: From Research
to Results, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria.
QAE Mehra, S. and Rhee, M. (2009), “On the application of quality management concepts in education:
an example of a Korean classroom”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
24,3 Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 312-324.
OECD (2010), TALIS 2008 Technical Report, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development, Paris.
Pajares, M.F. (1992), “Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct”,
414 Review of Educational Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 307-332.
Peterson, K.D. and Deal, T.E. (2009), “The shaping school culture”, Fieldbook, 2nd ed., Jossey Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Pustjens, H., Van de gaer, E., Van Damme, J. and Onghena, P. (2008), “Curriculum choice and
success in the first two grades of secondary education: students, classes, or schools?”,
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 155-182.
Race, P. (1993), “Never mind the teaching: feel the learning!”, Quality Assurance in Education,
Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 40-43.
Rosa, M.J., Tavares, D. and Amaral, A. (2006), “Institutional consequences of quality assessment”,
Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 145-159.
Rusjan, B. (2005), “Usefulness of the EFQM excellence model: theoretical explanation of some
conceptual and methodological issues”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 363-380.
Sallis, E. (2002), Total Quality Management in Education, 3rd ed, Kogan Page, London.
Sarason, S.B. (2003), El Predecible Fracaso de la Reforma Educativa, Octaedro, Barcelona.
Senge, P. (1990), “The fifth discipline”, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. and Kleiner, A. (2000), Schools that
Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares about
Education, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY.
Senlle, A. and Stol, G. (1994), ISO 9000: Calidad Total y Normalización, Ediciones Gestión,
Barcelona.
Stensaker, B. (2007), “Impact of quality processes”, in Bollaert, L., Brus, S., Curvale, B., Harvey, L.,
Helle, E., Jensen, H.T., Komljenovič, J., Orphanides, A. and Sursock, A. (Eds), Embedding
Quality Culture in Higher Education: a Selection of Papers from the 1st European Forum
for Quality Assurance, European University Association, Brussels, pp. 59-63.
Stensaker, B., Langfeldt, L., Harvey, L., Huisman, J. and Westerheijden, D.F. (2011), “An in-depth
study on the impact of external quality assurance”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 465-478.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J. and Gallard, A.J. (1994), “Research on instructional strategies for teaching
science”, in Gabel, D.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning,
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Tribus, M. (1993), “Why not education: quality management in education”, Journal for Quality and
Participation, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 12-21.
Van Berghe, W. (1998), “Aplicación de las normas ISO 9000 a la enseñanza y la formación”, Revista
Europea de la Formación Profesional, Vol. 15, pp. 21-30.
Watson, P. and Howart, T. (2011), Quality Management, Principles and Practice, Spon, New York.
Westerveld, E. (2003), “The Project Excellence Model®: linking success criteria and critical
success factors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 411-418.
Yau, H.K. and Cheng, A.L.F. (2013), “Quality management in primary schools”, International
Education Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 16-31.
Zembylas, M. (2009), “Teacher emotions in the context of educational reforms”, in Hargreaves, A., Impact of
Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. and Hopkins, D. (Eds), Second International Handbook of
Educational Change, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 221-236. quality
systems
Further reading
Hofman, R.H., Dijkstra, N.J. and Hofman, W.H.A. (2008), “Internal versus external quality
management”, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 281-300. 415
Kerlinger, F. and Lee, H. (2002), Investigación del Comportamiento. Métodos de Investigación en
Ciencias Sociales, McGraw Hill, México.

About the authors

Francisco José Fernández Cruz has been an Elementary Education Teacher, Educational
Psychologist and Doctor of Education, and is currently working as a Professor of Education
Degree and Masters of Secondary Education Teacher at University Francisco de Vitoria of Madrid
(Spain). His research has centred on information technology and communication, teacher
competencies, quality and evaluation. Francisco José Fernández Cruz is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: f.fernandez.prof@ufv.es
Inmaculada Egido Gálvez is a Doctor of Education and Senior Professor of Comparative
Education at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid (Spain) and Vice-Chairman of the Spanish
Society of Comparative Education (SEEC). Her research has centred on education policy, teacher
training and education systems in Europe and Latin America.
Rafael Carballo Santaolalla is a Doctor of Education, and is currently working as Professor of
Education Degree and Master’s at Universidad Complutense of Madrid, specialising in research
methods, statistics, testing and measurement, evaluation programme, quality and evaluation.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com