Editorial

Citation

Roberts, B. (2007), "Editorial", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem.2007.06021baa.001

Editorial

Welcome to the second issue of 2007. As I write this I am about to go to Hong Kong for the APERA conference which I am very much looking forward to. Apart from meeting new colleagues there has been much involvement from Professor Cheng from this journal. This will be an opportunity to not only meet new people but to hear new ideas and seek out new developments in this part of the world-hopefully there will be prospective new authors and members of the advisory board! Already Professor Geoff Masters has agreed to be a board member. You may have gathered my anticipation of the conference about which a short report will be forthcoming either with this or the subsequent issue-not only is it a part of the world I have not visited before but it will be interesting to contrast the conference with others I have attended in the US or Europe.

In this issue we include the usual range of papers in style and content as well as geographical spread. Their are contributions from Dubai, the US, the UK, and Norway. In the first of these papers Dr Shane McGoey writes on “A comparison of institutional stakeholders’ perceptions of presidential effectiveness” in which he outlines the purpose of the study to extend the research of Michael, Schwarz and Balraj pertaining to presidential effectiveness outlined in an article in this journal in volume 15. Faculty senate chairpersons, academic deans, senior level institutional officers, and student leaders were surveyed in order to ascertain whether there was a relationship between stakeholders’ perceptions and whether the findings supported the original study by Michael et al. The analysis of the data showed that the participants agreed that all of the indicators of effectiveness were important. Additionally, stakeholders and trustees agree more than they disagree on the indicators of effectiveness and the role of the president.

In the next paper Professor Janet Reusser with Drs Butler, Symonds, Vetter, and Wall provide “An assessment system for teacher education program quality improvement”, in which they state that accreditation agencies have shifted from an input model to an outcomes based approach to teacher preparation. This study describes how one US Midwestern university manages to implement quality principles based upon the value added premise, in a teacher preparation program that has achieved teacher candidate effectiveness and programme improvement whilst maximising teacher candidate retention. The results have improved candidate performance on knowledge, skills and dispositions measures and most importantly show evidence of positive impact on the learning of P-12 students.

Mohammed Arif from the British University of Dubai offers a contribution to the debate on “Baldridge theory into practice: a generic model”. The education system has moved globally from a push based or producer centred system to a pull based or customer centred system. The Malcolm Baldridge quality award is one of the latest additions to the pull based models. This paper develops a generic framework for MBQA that can be used by educational institutes to achieve Baldridge quality operational excellence.

In the next offering from Norway, Drs Helgesen and Nesset from the Alesund University College write on “What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field evidence”. Public funding of institutions offering higher education is becoming scarcer, more complex, and to an ever increasing extent performance based state the authors in their abstract. In the teaching area the financing is partly based upon student credits and professional degrees. Thus student loyalty has become an important strategic theme. The purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between student satisfaction, students’ perceptions of the reputation of an educational institution and student loyalty; hypothesising positive relationships between satisfaction and loyalty, reputation and loyalty and between satisfaction and reputation. Antecedents of student satisfaction and reputation are also included in the study.

Professor Ken Reid of Swansea Institute of Higher education presents “An evaluation of reports on the attendance of pupils in out of school provisions”. The paper is the first time that such an evaluation has been attempted and uses OFSTED’s (office for standards in education) information. A full cohort of OFSTED reports on out of school units, often known as PRU’s (pupil referral units) were scrutinised using 2003 information. The attendance data was then analysed statistically and geographically by region. The regions designated were the north of England, London and the home counties, the Midlands and the rest of England. The findings indicate that unauthorised absence rates in PRU’s are more than ten times those reported for primary and secondary schools and for local authorities (LA’s previously known as LEA’s).

In the final paper Professor Wayne Hoy and Associate Professor Page Smith both previous contributors to the journal combine on “Influence; a key to successful leadership” in which they examine the literature on influence and persuasion. The authors firstly identified the basic principles of influence in the theoretical and research literature which are supported by empirical study. Ten principles of influence were identified and implications for leaders discussed. Briefly the ten principles give ten strategies to persuade and influence students, teachers and parents.

The papers have some common threads therefore as influence, persuasion, loyalty and attendance derive partly from the institutions’ success in retaining and recruiting the cohorts present and future.

Brian Roberts