A
ca74
untitled6a.pdf
Career and Technical Education Research, 41(1), p. 49
DOI: 10.5328/cter41.1.49
©2016
49
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award in Education Criteria:
Perceptions of Leaders and Faculty
Patricia Crum-Allen
IVY Tech Community College
Louann Bierlein Palmer
Western Michigan University
Abstract
This study examined career and technical education (CTE) centers in Michigan and their
potential alignment with the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award in Education. CTE center leaders
and their faculty were asked to provide their perceptions of how well their organizations meet
Baldrige quality elements, using a version of the Baldrige Assessment Tool. The study further
queried CTE center leaders and faculty with regard to quality awards received and their desire
to pursue external quality award. Differences between CTE leaders and faculty responses were
explored. This research used an on-line survey to gather perceptions of CTE center leaders and
faculty. The data collection tool utilized a six-point Likert scale moving from strong
disagreement to strong agreement (6.0). Of the CTE center leaders and faculty, 293 responded;
nearly three-fourths were faculty. Frequency, descriptive, and ANOVA statistics revealed the
perception by CTE center leaders and faculty that their organizations were strong enough to win
external quality award. Of the 40 Baldrige items on the assessment tool, only four items had less
than 50% of participants not indicating moderate and/or strong agreement. Items ranked from a
5.71 to 4.04 mean. Statistically significant differences between leaders and faculty were
identified in four categories.
Keywords: Baldrige, quality award, criteria categories, AdvancED Accreditation
Introduction
The Malcolm Baldrige Award is a
premiere designation sought by many
business organizations/institutions as a way
to demonstrate the effectiveness of their
quality initiatives (Dahlgaard-Park, 2011).
The award was created in 1987 and named in
honor of Malcolm Baldrige, former U.S.
Secretary of Commerce. Initial application
categories included manufacturing, service
companies, and small business, with
education and health care award categories
added in 1999. Currently, the Baldrige
Award is given annually to no more than
three winners in each category.
Within most states, all school
districts, including CTE centers, seek
accreditation through their regional
accreditation association. Much like the
Baldrige Organization’s award criteria, such
accreditation places emphasis on results as
measured against designated standards and
criteria, with a focus on systems thinking and
strategic planning. These accreditation
requirements often mirror standards and
criteria required for the Baldrige Award
(AdvancED, 2012; Ruben, 2007). By
achieving accreditation, the argument can be
made that CTE centers are not only structured
in academic design, but further postured by
accreditation, for potentially pursuing the
Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award in
Education.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
50
CTE centers are also fostered by
relationships with business including
advisory committees, guest speakers, job
shadow experiences and work-based learning
experiences. Indeed, many CTE centers have
reciprocal relationships with business and
industry, whereby CTE students may
represent future employees to the workforce
sites where they receive on-the-job training
while attending a CTE program (Alfeld,
Charner, Johnson, & Watts, 2013).
Given such close business
relationships and the need to meet
accreditation standards, one might expect to
find at least one CTE center among the
previous Baldrige Award in Education
winners. Yet, only about 3% of the applicants
for the overall Baldrige Awards come from
the K-12 education sector, with only seven
awards granted to K-12 organizations to date
(National Institute of Standards and
Technology [NIST], 2013), and no CTE
centers are listed among the winners. Our
study therefore sought to explore this issue,
by examining the extent to which CTE center
personnel in one state perceived the existence
of various quality indicators within their
organizations.
Relevant Literature
Following the establishment of the
Baldrige Award in 1987, some educational
institutions began to translate and apply
quality criteria to their organizations, and
states began to include educational
institutions in their eligibility for state quality
awards based on the criteria (Walpole &
Noeth, 2002). Given their close relationship
with local business and industry, CTE centers
also began integrating performance
excellence and quality measures into their
programs (Berry, 1997). This included school
improvement, systems thinking, and strategic
planning that is driven in part by changing
state and national philosophies, legislative
directive, and by accreditation processes and
procedures (AdvancED, 2012). Indeed, Arif
and Smiley (2003) noted the following
reasons for the incorporation of quality
initiatives in education: declining
enrollments, declining quality, facilitating
change, changing demographics, advancing
technology, competition among institutions,
employers demanding better graduates,
declining retention rates, student
dissatisfaction with overall service quality,
and the costs associated with educational
delivery.
Yet, a review of the literature
revealed only limited multi-institutional
research on the adoption of the Baldrige
criteria within educational settings. Some
work has been done to profile one or more of
the few K-12 education award winners (e.g.,
Byrnes & Baxter, 2006; Cokeley, Byrnes,
Markley, & Keely, 2007), and general
literature exists dealing with overall award
criteria (e.g., Brown, 2014). A few studies
could be found that looked at linkages
between accreditation processes and the
Baldrige award criteria (e.g., Craven, Scott,
& Kiser, 2009; Ruben, 2007), but these were
at the postsecondary, not the K-12
educational level.
Only two multi-institution studies
specifically connecting Baldrige and K-12
institutions could be found, as described in
The Promise of Baldrige for K-12 Education,
ACT Policy Report (Walpole & Noeth,
2002). While both studies had relatively
small sample sizes, they looked at process
change across multiple institutions including
urban, suburban, and rural K-12 school
districts of diverse sizes. One study, Horine,
Frazier, and Edmister (1998) examined
leadership through the lens of
implementation of Baldrige, while the other,
Detert, Kopel, Mauriel, and Jenni (2000),
examined quality from a broader perspective
focusing on districts with stated
commitments to quality improvement.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
51
The 30 K-12 districts in the first study
by Horine et al. (1998) had averaged 3.6
years of working to implement Baldrige, with
87% beginning their efforts at the district
level. Senior administration in these districts
was very involved and committed to Baldrige
(Walpole & Noeth, 2002). Over 90% said
they gathered input from various
constituencies for the district’s strategic plan,
disseminated it widely, and were trained and
engaged in implementing school goals.
Findings of the study indicated that 76% of
the districts reported that student
performance, including test scores, had
shown improvement.
The second study by Detert et al.
(2000) focused on ten high schools over four
years, using both quantitative and qualitative
methods. The researchers believed that
improving the quality of core processes,
specifically teaching and learning, held much
promise for improving education. Their
report found that approximately 50% of
survey respondents, who represented a
national sample of purposefully chosen high
schools, indicated that continuous
improvement was part of their school or
district plan, and that state-mandated tests
often prompted implementation of quality
processes. In fact, the report went on to
indicate that quality initiatives and state-
mandated tests were frequently
complementary of one another (Detert et al.,
2000).
Both these previous studies are quite
old, and no research could be found at all that
reviewed potential connections between CTE
centers and the Baldrige Award criteria. This
is despite such centers having an educational
delivery framework in place which appears to
support the Baldrige framework and its
integrated approach to quality reform. Thus
our review of the literature revealed the need
for this study.
Conceptual Frame and Research
Questions
Seven categories serve as a
framework for the Baldrige Award in
Education application: leadership; strategic
planning; customer focus; measurement,
analysis, and knowledge management;
workforce focus; operations, and results
(NIST, 2013). These categories closely
mirror the standards required by one
Midwestern accreditation organization:
governance and leadership; purpose and
direction; teaching and assessing for
learning; resource and support systems; and
using results for continuous improvement
(AdvancED, 2012). CTE programs are also
offered through 16 career cluster areas, many
of which are closely aligned with the
Baldrige application categories, including:
manufacturing, hospitality and tourism,
business management and administration,
education and training, health science, and
human services.
As depicted in Table 1, standards
required for AdvancEd accreditation closely
mirror the seven categories that frame the
Baldrige Education Criteria. Based on their
regular accreditation processes through
AdvancED and strong ties with the business
and industry and communities, CTE centers
may already be postured to apply for and
potentially win quality award, but be
unaware.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
52
Table 1
CTE Center’s Alignments with the Baldrige Criteria and Categories
CTE Advanced ED Standards Baldrige Award Criteria Category
Governance & Leadership Leadership
Purpose & Direction Strategic Planning
Teaching & Assessing for Learning Customer Focus
Resource & Support Systems Workforce Focus; Operations
Using Results for Continuous Improvement Measurement, Analysis & Knowledge
Management; Results
CTE Cluster Areas Baldrige Application Category
Manufacturing Manufacturing
Hospitality & Tourism Service
Business Management & Administration Small Business
Education & Training Education
Health Science Health Care
Human Services Non-profit
Effective leadership is outlined as
essential by both organizations, and the
purpose and direction standard of the
AdvancED accreditation requirements
speaks to strategic planning. Teaching and
assessing for learning is linked to customer
focus, and resource and support systems are
framed by Baldrige as a part of workforce
focus and operations. Both organizations
place significant emphasis on information
and results and use results to guide strategic
planning and continuous improvement
efforts. By achieving accreditation through
AdvancED, the argument can be made that
this state’s CTE centers are not only
structured in academic design, but further
postured by accreditation, for potentially
pursuing the Baldrige Award in Education.
Given these CTE centers are required to
develop a continuous improvement process
within the requirements of their accreditation
model, we explored how CTE center leaders
view their center’s potential to also pursue
the Baldrige Award in Education.
The purpose of this study therefore
was to explore the extent to which CTE
center leaders and their faculty believe that
their CTE centers are meeting the quality
efforts as detailed in the seven Baldrige
Quality Award in Education Categories.
Specifically, our study addressed the
following research questions.
1. To what extent do CTE center leaders and their faculty believe their
organizations are aligned with the
Baldrige criteria?
2. What previous experience have the respondents had with quality awards,
and to what extent does the
assessment of the organization via the
completion of the Baldrige
Assessment Tool influence their
interest in pursuing quality awards in
the future?
3. Are there any significant differences in item responses between the CTE
center leaders and their faculty?
Methodology
Our study gathered perceptions from
the target population of all CTE center
leaders and faculty within one Michigan’s 55
CTE Centers, including those in consortium
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
53
structures. CTE center leaders and faculty
included principals, assistant principals,
department heads, faculty, and
paraprofessional faculty. The target
population was selected to assess overall
perceptions of those most directly engaged in
the CTE student learning process and to
determine if there were differences in
perception between leaders and faculty.
An e-mail list of all respondents was
compiled using information provided by the
CTE Office of Michigan’s department of
education, through information publicly
available on each of the 55 center
organizational websites, and with the
assistance of individual CTE center
administrators. After appropriate Human
Subjects Institutional Review Board
(HSRIB) approval was obtained, an initial e-
mail containing our survey URL was sent
inviting CTE center leaders and faculty to
participate in the study; a reminder notice
was sent in each of the two weeks that
followed. The data were collected during
spring 2014.
We used an existing instrument
created by NIST (2013), The Baldrige
Assessment Tool, an organizationally-
designed, public domain survey. This survey
instrument solicits responses to statements
provided for each of the seven Baldrige
criteria categories, with emphasis on
Baldrige-designated requirements and
specifics. There are four to nine clarifying
statements under each category.
Baldrige allows customization of this
instrument to meet organizational and/or
research needs (NIST, 2013), and we revised
it to use language that specifically addresses
CTE centers, and their leaders and faculty
members. As survey participants represented
professionals in the educational field who
should have a professional perception on the
topic being addressed, the undecided neutral
option was removed and replaced with
moderately disagree and moderately agree
options, moving from a 5-point to a 6-point
Likert Scale. In addition to the items from
The Baldrige Assessment Tool, seven
additional survey questions were added
which examined previous experience with
quality awards and potential post-assessment
organizational influences, and solicited
demographic data. One open-ended question
was provided for written comments.
While this core instrument was
created by the Baldrige organization, no
reliability and validity data were available for
their instrument, nor were any provided when
we requested this information. Instead, we
piloted the customized instrument with six
CTE professionals from CTE centers of
varying size and diverse in the state of
interest. These six professionals were
provided a hard copy of the survey as well as
electronic access, and were asked to note
impressions regarding readability and clarity.
Their feedback was incorporated into the
final survey, ensuring the clarity of the
instructions and questions. Despite this, the
lack of established reliability and validity for
this instrument is noted as a limitation, as is
the concern with any survey research
whereby those that take the time to respond
may not be representative of the entire
population.
Of the 1,350 CTE center leaders and
faculty for whom we had a valid email
address (i.e., one that did not bounce back),
293 (21.7%) responded to the survey; 72.5%
were faculty, 10.6% were paraprofessionals,
6.6% were principals, assistant principals, or
other administrators, 6.6% were department
chairs and faculty members, and 14.3%
identified themselves as other professionals
within the CTE center, including counselors
and student services personnel. It should be
noted that given the lower response rate of
21.7%, responses are likely over-estimates
toward the higher end, probably offered by
individuals in the strongest positions and
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
54
representing those most willing to self-
review.
Findings
Most CTE centers in which the
respondents worked had between 10 to 99
faculty members (84.2%, see Table 2). Many
served large numbers of students, with 36.5%
having between 500 and 999 students, 29.6%
between 1,000 and 1,999 students, 19.1%
between 100 and 499 students, and 9.1%
between 2,000 and 4,000 students. The
majority of students in these CTE centers
came from lower-middle class (56.9%) or
middle-class (30.3%) backgrounds, while the
areas surrounding the respondents’ CTE
centers were largely identified as rural
(51.5%) or suburban (36.5%).
To retain anonymity of the
respondents, the survey did not query the
specific CTE center of employ, but inquired
about their geographic region in the state and
then compared that with the overall regional
percentages. Table 3 shows the majority of
respondents came from the southeast
(29.8%), southwest (29.5%), or mid-central
(25.8%) areas of Michigan. It also reveals
that there are some regions which were over
and underrepresented, and although the
respondents were somewhat proportional to
the distribution of the total population of
centers, there are too many differences to
claim any generalization to all centers in this
state. Also, because CTE center names were
not collected, it is unknown if responses were
received from all 55 centers.
With respect to career cluster area, 15
of 16 areas were represented. Only
government and public administration was
not reported. Health sciences had the largest
number of respondents (24.3%), followed by
the transportation, distribution, and logistics
career cluster area (8.3%).
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
55
Table 2
CTE Center Respondents: Demographic Information (n = 275)
Demographic Frequency %
Position 273
Principal/assistant principal, administrator 18 6.6
Department chair & faculty member 18 6.6
Faculty member 198 72.5
Paraprofessional faculty member 29 10.6
Other (counselors, student services) 10 3.7
# of Teaching and Administrative Staff
247
0-9 19 7.7
10-24 59 23.9
25-49 85 34.4
50-99 64 26.0
100 & over 11 4.5
Did Not Know 9 3.6
Students
241
0-99 4 1.7
100-499 46 19.1
500-999 88 36.5
1000-1999 71 29.5
2000-4000 22 9.1
Did Not Know 10 4.2
Socioeconomic Status of Majority of Students
274
Lower class 24 8.8
Lower-middle class 156 56.9
Middle class 83 30.3
Upper-middle class 11 4.0
Upper class 0 0.0
Area Surrounding CTE Center
274
Urban/metropolitan 33 12.0
Suburban 100 36.5
Rural 141 51.5
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
56
Table 4 includes all 40 items across
the seven categories, in order from highest to
lowest mean. This table captures all items in
one visual to provide overall comparison as
to which categories were of greatest strength
and/or weakness. While there appears good
distribution between strength to weakness for
six of the categories, the strategic planning
items are found among the lowest scoring
items and appear to be an area for further
focus.
Overall, the perceptual ratings of
leaders and staff within CTE Centers were
high for most indicators, with only 10 items
below the 4.50 mark (out of 6.0), which still
places them within the “slightly agree” area.
Of those items, four are strategic planning
items, two each within leadership and results
areas, and one each in the workforce and
measurement areas. Such high perceptual
ratings warrant CTE centers applying for an
external quality award like the Baldrige
award.
Table 3
Geographic Area of State’s CTE Centers Compared to Respondents (n = 275)
Geographic Area
Survey Respondents CTE Centers in Area
n % n %
Southwest 81 29.5 12 21.8
Southeast 82 29.8 23 41.8
Mid-central 71 25.8 10 18.2
Northwest 26 9.5 4 7.3
Northeast 4 1.5 1 1.8
Upper 11 4.0 5 9.1
Totals 275 100.1 55 100.0
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
57
Table 4
Mean Ranking of Baldrige Category Items (n = 293)
Category Item M SD
Workforce I am committed to My CTE center’s success 5.71 0.66
Customer I know who my most important customers are 5.57 0.74
Results My CTE center obeys laws and regulations 5.51 0.91
Workforce I have a safe workplace 5.42 1.03
Results My customers are satisfied with my work 5.39 0.69
Results My work products meet all requirements 5.30 0.77
Results My CTE center practices high standards and ethics 5.22 1.20
Leadership I know my CTE center’s mission 5.22 1.17
Customer I regularly ask my customers what they need and want 5.21 0.90
Measurement I can use this information to make changes that will
improve my work
5.20 0.94
Measurement I know how to measure the quality of my work 5.20 0.93
Customer I also know who my CTE center’s most important
customers are
5.18 1.10
Results My CTE center is a good place to work 5.17 1.17
Operations My CTE center is prepared to handle an emergency 5.03 1.18
Results My CTE center helps me help my community 5.00 1.21
Customer I ask if my customers are satisfied or dissatisfied with my
work
4.98 1.00
Leadership I know my CTE center’s vision 4.88 1.30
Customer I am allowed to make decisions to solve problems for my
customers
4.84 1.24
Workforce The people I work with cooperate and work as a team 4.83 1.31
Operations I can everything I need to do my job 4.72 1.26
Results My CTE center has the right people and skills to do its
work
4.70 1.30
Measurement I know how the measures I use fit into center’s overall
measures of improvement
4.70 1.19
Operations I have control over my work processes 4.69 1.26
Workforce My CTE center’s leadership team and my CTE center care
about me
4.65 1.51
Leadership Senior (top) leaders at my CTE center use our
organization’s values to guide us
4.65 1.40
Leadership My CTE center’s leadership team shares information about
the organization
4.61 1.41
Workforce My leadership team encourages job development so I can
advance in my career
4.57 1.47
Strat. Planning My CTE center encourages totally new ideas (innovation) 4.54 1.50
Operations My CTE center has good processes for doing our work 4.54 1.32
Measurement I get all the information I need to do my work 4.52 1.31
Leadership Senior (top) leaders at my center create work environment
that helps us do our job
4.49 1.51
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
58
Strat. Planning I know the parts of my CTE center’s plans that will affect
me and my work
4.44 1.40
Workforce I am recognized for my work 4.40 1.50
Measurement I know how my CTE center as a whole is doing 4.40 1.37
Leadership My CTE center’s leadership team asks what I think 4.27 1.58
Strat. Planning My CTE center is flexible and can make changes quickly
when needed
4.21 1.49
Strat. Planning As it plans for the future, my CTE center asks for my ideas 4.19 1.59
Results I know how well my CTE center is doing financially 4.11 1.53
Strat. Planning I know how to tell if my center is making progress on my
group’s part of the plan
4.08 1.46
Results My CTE center removes things that get in the way of
progress
4.04 1.46
Note. Strongly Disagree=1, Mod. Disagree=2, Slightly Disagree=3; Slightly Agree=4, Mod.
Agree=5, Strongly Agree=6.
Table 5 highlights the Baldrige
Results items, including customer
satisfaction, quality of product and the
following of laws and regulations, ethical
practices, the work environment, community
service, personnel, financial viability, and the
CTE center’s commitment to continued
organizational progress. In its scoring of
Baldrige applicants, the organization
dedicates the largest portion of potential
points to results and the use of data as a
means for demonstrating quality success
(NIST, 2013).
Table 5
Results Items (n = 293)
Survey Item
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
5
%
6
% Mean
My customers are satisfied with my work 0.4 0.0 0.4 7.6 43.1 48.6 5.51
My CTE center obeys laws and regulations 1.0 1.4 1.4 5.8 22.3 68.0 5.39
My work products meet all requirements 0.4 0.4 1.0 10.4 43.4 44.4 5.30
My CTE center practices high standards &
ethics
2.8 3.1 2.8 8.7 25.7 56.9 5.22
My CTE center is a good place to work 2.1 2.4 4.9 11.2 25.4 54.0 5.17
My CTE center helps me help my
community
2.1 3.1 6.9 12.5 30.9 44.4 5.00
My CTE center has the right people and
skills
3.1 5.8 7.9 14.8 38.1 30.2 4.70
I know how well my CTE center is
financially
8.7 8.0 14.5 21.8 26.3 20.8 4.11
My CTE center removes things that get in
the way of progress
7.6 8.3 17.7 21.1 29.1 16.3 4.04
Note. Not all respondents responded to all items. Likert scale: Strongly Disagree=1, Moderately
Disagree=2, Slightly Disagree=3, Slightly Agree=4, Moderately Agree=5, Strongly Agree=6.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
59
Of the nine statement items in the
results category, six scored above a
moderately agree (5.00) level, with customer
satisfaction coming in at the highest score (M
= 5.51). Respondents also indicated that their
individual CTE centers obeyed laws and
regulations (M = 5.39), produced quality
products (M = 5.30), and conducted their
work in an ethical manner (M = 5.22).
With the single, open-ended question
in the survey, participants were asked to
identify areas of their CTE center in most
need of improvement with regard to quality.
Among the 99 respondents to this question,
the highest frequency item addressed both
middle and upper level management. About
one-fifth (19.2%) shared comments
indicating varying levels of management had
not created a climate where employees felt
trusted and valued, and (17.2%) indicated
there were many good things going on in
CTE centers, but that greater marketing
efforts were required to inform the public on
happenings and achievements. Another area
of comment (13.1%) focused on the need to
hire qualified teaching personnel who care
about students. Concern regarding the
perceived image of CTE, and the need to
educate home school counselors as to what
CTE has to offer, was addressed as a
component in several of the comments
(10.1%).
We also asked participants if their
CTE center has ever considered applying for
an external quality award, actually applied
for an external quality award, and/or received
some external quality award. Of the 273
respondents to this question, 33.7% indicated
they had considered applying for some
external quality award, 9.5% had not, and the
largest percentage of respondents (57.1%)
indicated they did not know if their CTE
center had ever considered applying for some
external quality award. When it came to
actually having applied for some external
quality award, the numbers were similar:
33.5% selected yes, 12.1% selected no, and
55.5% selected do not know. When it came
to having won some type of quality award in
the past, 28.9% indicated they had, 13.3%
indicated they had not, and 57.6% of
respondents noted that they did not know if
their CTE center had actual received some
external quality award. Fifty-nine
respondents noted specific quality awards
that had been awarded their CTE center, and
the largest category were best/excellence in
practice awards had the greatest frequency
(22.0%), and one Baldrige applicant was
noted among the two (3.4%) ISO 9000
recipients.
The desire of CTE personnel to apply
for an external quality award is reflected in
Table 6. Of note, 228 respondents (85.4%)
indicated some level of agreement that their
CTE center was strong enough to win an
external quality award. In contrast,
completing the survey did not have similar
influence on each respondent’s desire to
apply for some external quality award. The
majority (135, 51.6%) of respondents, 82
(31.1%) slightly agreed or 54 (20.5%)
slightly disagreed that completing the survey
influenced their desire to pursue an external
quality award.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
60
Table 6
CTE Personnel Desire to Apply for a Quality Award(s) (n = 228)
Response Item
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
5
%
6
% Mean
I believe that my CTE center is strong enough to
actually win some external quality award(s)
3.4 3.4 7.9 17.2 27.0 41.2 4.85
Completing this survey has influenced my desire to
have my CTE center apply for some external
quality award(s)
16.3 10.6 20.5 31.1 14.4 7.2 3.38
Note. Not all respondents responded to all items. Likert scale: Strongly Disagree=1, Moderately
Disagree=2, Slightly Disagree=3, Slightly Agree=4, Moderately Agree=5, Strongly Agree=6
We also examined any significant
differences in item responses between CTE
center leaders and their faculty. ANOVA
comparisons were run for the seven Baldrige
criteria items, and for the desire to apply for
an external quality award. Cronbach’s Alpha
testing was conducted on each of the Baldrige
criteria categories and determined high inter-
correlation between the items for each of the
seven categories. Table 7 illustrates
significant differences between CTE center
leaders and their faculty. Only those
categories where significant differences
occurred are depicted.
Statistically significant differences
were found with four of the seven Baldrige
categories, including Leadership, Strategic
Planning, Workforce Focus, and Results.
Differences were found between leaders and
faculty, and between leaders and
paraprofessional faculty. There were no
differences found between faculty and
paraprofessional faculty. The mean for CTE
leaders was always highest for each of the
four categories, followed by faculty and
paraprofessional faculty.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
61
Table 7
Significant Differences in Item Responses Between CTE Center Leaders and Faculty
Baldrige Award Category N
T Comparison
Means of Position Pr>F
Post-hoc Tukey
Position Differences
Leadership
(Six collapsed items)
Leader
Faculty
Paraprofessional Faculty
33
184
24
31.27
27.72
26.46
0.0117* Leader and Faculty*
Leader and Paraprofessional
Faculty*
Strategic Planning
(Five collapsed items)
Leader
Faculty
Paraprofessional Faculty
33
185
24
25.21
21.05
19.29
0.0005* Leader and Faculty*
Leader and Paraprofessional
Faculty*
Workforce Focus
(Six collapsed items)
Leader
Faculty
Paraprofessional Faculty
32
188
23
31.97
29.21
29.17
0.0328* Leader and Faculty*
Results
(Nine collapsed items)
Leader
Faculty
Paraprofessional Faculty
33
186
24
47.64
44.20
43.33
0.0286* Leader and Faculty*
Note. Not all respondents responded to all items. Principal/Assistant Principal, Administrator,
and Department Chair & Faculty Member=Leader.
*Difference is significant at p<0.05.
Likert scale used in mean determination: Strongly Disagree=1, Moderately Disagree=2, Slightly
Disagree=3, Slightly Agree=4, Moderately Agree=5, Strongly Agree=6
Implications for Policy and Practice
Leadership In the leadership area, two lower
ranked items were “my CTE centers’ top
leaders create a work environment that helps
us do our job” (M = 4.49), and “my CTE
center’s leadership team asks what I think”
(M = 4.27).
We recommend CTE centers conduct
internal surveys of their personnel, perhaps
adapting the Baldrige Assessment Tool
instrument, to ascertain any concerns, and
address these once identified. A visible
leadership presence is then needed, witnessed
regularly by all departments throughout the
CTE center (Booth, Shames, & Desberg,
2010). This physical action would serve to
signify a concentrated effort on the part of
leadership to demonstrate genuine support of
programs, faculty, and students.
A greater attention to enhanced
communication may allow for a more
productive work environment where all feel
heard with regard to sharing of issue of
concern. This could be accomplished through
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
62
focus groups and listening sessions, which
would provide a forum for employees to
explain what they think. It also affords
opportunity to empower employees by
involving them in processes specifically
designed to improve relationships with
management (Fox, 2014).
Strategic Planning
It is of particular note that four of the
items which received lower ratings are within
the strategic planning area: I know the parts
of my CTE center’s plans that will affect my
work (M = 4.44); My CTE center is flexible
and can make changes quickly (M = 4.21);
My CTE center asks for my ideas as it plans
for the future (M = 4.19); and I know how to
tell if my CTE center is making progress on
my work group’s part of the plan (M = 4.08).
To address these issues CTE centers
should develop organizational charts
(Ingram, 2014) that would not only illustrate
hierarchy, but also the interdependence
(systems thinking) of accountability between
personnel and departments. The data also
suggests there are many cultural paradigms
(many effective, some not) within CTE
centers. Taking the time to begin the dialogue
of how to address problems when they arise,
which was a noted suggestion in response to
the open-ended question, would appear the
first step in working to raise rankings for the
items noted above. Recognition of
commonly-identified problems and chartered
courses for solving them could set precedent
for future behavior (Hicks, 2014).
Initial steps could begin with small-
scale success on a commonly-identified
problem and accompanying potential (goal)
solution. Once that first goal is achieved,
reflection on everyone’s part regarding how
the goal affected each individual’s work, and
how individuals were able to assess
individual and group progress and make
changes as needed, would provide future
model. Most importantly with all of this,
would be the investment by all in changing
ineffective paradigms. It would be essential
that everyone’s contributions would be
welcome and valued (Hicks, 2014).
Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge
Management; Workforce; and Results There was one lower rated item
within the Measurement, Analysis and
Knowledge Management area: I know how
my CTE center as a whole is doing (M =
4.40). To support better knowledge, a bi-
annual sharing of balance sheets and other
applicable financial statements is
recommended.
There was one lower rated item
within the Workforce Focus area: I am
recognized for my work (M = 4.40). Both
through this question and via their open-
ended question comments, CTE center
leaders and faculty indicated that they would
like to be recognized for their work. While
straight-forward expressions of gratitude,
either verbally or in writing, are always
appreciated, it is recommended that CTE
centers bestow more formal award of
recognition (Harrison, 2013). These awards
may be for things like instructional
excellence, years of service, and community
service.
Finally, there were two lower scoring
Results items: I know how well my CTE
center is doing financially (M = 4.11); and
My CTE center removes things that get in the
way of progress (M = 4.04). Previous
recommendations to develop a CTE center
strategic plan and to share subsequent
progress with regard to the plan, as well as
the bi-annual sharing of Balance Sheet and
other applicable financial statements will
help to address these issues. Applicants for
the Baldrige Award receive a report on
findings (NIST, 2013) which may serve as a
strategic plan document.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
63
Concluding Thoughts While quality may have different
meanings to individuals, organizations, or
associations, most, if not all, are in agreement
that high-level performance is attention-
drawing. Whether it is in academics, the
business world, sports, or contributions to the
greater good individuals, groups, and teams
who have performed to high levels have
frequently received recognition for their
accomplishment. They set the standard for
best practice. In a similar manner, CTE
centers have an established bar set for quality
practice via their accreditation requirements.
They attempt to offer relevancy and
applicability in their programming, as well as
real-world experiences within local business
communities.
Our data reveals that leaders and
others in these organizations as a whole do
believe their CTE centers are meeting many
of the Baldrige quality criteria. This is good
news. Yet, the data also indicate continued
need for improvement. Enhanced strategic
planning activities might provide greater
structure and opportunity for communication,
and regular, subsequent assessment would be
of benefit. Applying for an external quality
award, such as the Baldrige, may assist with
such strategic planning and could unite
personnel in a common goal. Those applying
for the Baldrige receive a post-review written
report that supplies many pieces needed for a
quality strategic plan, and many applicants
apply for the award knowing that they will
not win, but rather for this post-review
information (NIST, 2013). Indeed, Brown
(2014) advocates that the Baldrige
assessment be specifically used as a strategic
planning tool. Researchers have also found
the essential link between strategic planning
and accreditation processes (Lawrence &
Dangerfield, 2001), which in turn can
facilitated via the process of applying for
external quality awards.
Overall the study affirmed our
assumption that the work of CTE centers and
their ongoing accreditation-required quality
improvement processes makes them viable
candidates for an external quality award, and
the vast majority of leaders, faculty and staff
within such centers believe their centers
could actually win such awards. Given this
data, and the value that can come from the
feedback received, CTE centers in this state–
and perhaps beyond–are certainly
encouraged to make applying for a Baldrige
Award in Education part of their strategic
planning future.
References
AdvancED. (December 10, 2012).
AdvancED. Retrieved from
http://www.advanc- ed.org/.
Alfeld, C., Charner, I., Johnson, L., & Watts,
E. (2013, February). Work-based
learning opportunities for high school
students. Louisville, KY: National
Research Center for Career and Technical
Education, University of Louisville.
Arif, M., & Smiley, F. (2003) Business-like
accountability in education: Commentary
on Morill to Baldrige. Education, 123(4),
740–762.
Berry, G. (1997). Leadership and the
development of quality culture in
schools. International Journal of
Education Management, 11(2), 52–64.
Booth, D., Shames, D., & Desberg, P. (2010).
Own the room: Business presentations
that persuade, engage, and get results.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, M. G. (2014). Baldrige Award
winning quality: How to interpret the
Baldrige criteria for performance
excellence. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Byrnes, M. A., & Baxter, J. (2006). The
principal's leadership counts!: Launch a
Baldrige-based quality school.
Milwaukee, WI: Quality Press.
Alignment of CTE Centers with the Baldrige Quality Award
64
Cokeley, S., Byrnes, M. A., Markley, G., &
Keely, S. (Eds). (2007). Transformation
to performance excellence: Baldrige
education leaders speak out. Milwaukee,
WI: Quality Press.
Craven, A. E, Scott, J. J., & Kiser, A. I. T
(2009). Reaffirming accreditation
through application of Baldrige
performance excellence criteria: A case
study of a private, faith-based school of
business. International Journal of
Management in Education, 3(3-4/2009),
207-219.
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2011). The quality
movement: Where are you going? Total
Quality Management, 22(5), 493-498.
Detert, J. R., Kopel, M. E. B., Mauriel J. J.,
& Jenni, R. W. (2000). Quality
Management in U.S. high schools:
Evidence from the field. Journal of
School Leadership, 10, 158–187.
Fox, T. (2014, April 22). What to do when
managers and employees aren’t on the
same page [Web log post]. Retrieved
from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/o
n-leadership/wp/2014/04/21/what-to-do-
when-managers-and-employees-arent-
on-the-same-page/
Harrison, K. (2013). Why employee
recognition is so important. Retrieved
from
http://www.cuttingedgepr.com/articles/e
mprecog_so_important.asp.
Hicks, T. (2014). Seven steps for effective
problem solving in the workplace.
Retrieved from
http://www.mediate.com/articles/-
thicks.cfm.
Horine, J. E., Frazier, M. A., & Edmister, R.
O. (1998). The Baldrige as a framework
for assessing leadership practices.
Planning and Changing, 29(1), 2–23.
Ingram, D. (2014). Why is organizational
structure important?
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/organizat
ional-structure-important-3793.html
Lawrence, J. J., & Dangerfield, B. (2001).
Integrating professional reaccreditation
and quality award processes, Quality
Assurance in Education, 9(2), 80 – 91.
National Institute of Standards and
Technology. (2013). Baldrige
Performance Excellence Program.
Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov
Ruben, B. D. (2007). Higher education
assessment: Linking accreditation
standards and the Malcolm Baldrige
criteria. New Directions for Higher
Education, 2007(137), 59-83.
Walpole, M. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2002). The
promise of Baldrige for K-12 education:
ACT policy report. Iowa City, IA: ACT,
Inc.
Authors Patricia Crum-Allen is an Assistant Professor and Healthcare Specialist Program Chair at Ivy
Tech Community College, Southern Indiana, 8204 Highway 311, Pfau Hall, R4, Sellersburg, IN
47172, (812) 246-3301 ext 4383, email: [email protected].
Louann Bierlein Palmer is a Professor at Western Michigan University, Department of
Educational Leadership, Research and Technology, 1903 W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI
49008-5283, (269) 387-3596, email: [email protected].
Manuscript submitted 06.30.2015, accepted for publication 11.24.2015, published 04.01.2016.
Copyright of Career & Technical Education Research is the property of Career & Technical Education Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
