Guba and Lincoln’s model for trustworthiness refined by Poggenpoel (1998) was used to ensure the validity of the research. The four strategies to ensure trustworthiness are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Poggenpoel, 1998) and are summarised in Table 1 (Poggenpoel et al., 1994; De Vos 2005).

Results and Discussion of Results

Although not deliberately intended, the major categories that emerged from the data during data analysis coincided with the QM principles, even no specific questions were asked that directed the responses to that end. These include the key role of leadership, a customer focus, teacher collaboration and empowerment, commitment to continuous improvement, and training opportunities (Beavis, 1995; Daugherty, 1996).

The Key Role of Leadership

A number of participants indicated the key role of leadership in implementing and sustaining IE, which is also a key principle of QM. They believed that the successful implementation of IE depends on how it is modelled by the principal. One principal explained it as follows,

As leaders we take teachers to areas they wouldn’t normally go. So I am setting an example, I try to demonstrate how to treat people... I treat teachers in front of students the way I want them to treat students... I try to be a positive role model, treat teachers with respect, brag about them a lot.

The views of other principals supported this view, “If he [the principal] is not first ... [in] modelling IE and demonstrating it, it won’t happen... He has to be creative in modelling it;” “If the leader doesn’t do it [IE], there is no way others would do it. What is emphasised gets done;” and “The leader is the first and foremost ... she should walk her talk and get [her] hands dirty.”

Many teachers supported the idea of principals modelling IE, for example, “It [IE] starts from the top. If they want people to do good things, they should do it;” and “He [the principal] is the face of the school. He should be the face of IE.”

A prerequisite for modelling IE is for principals to “buy into” IE. Two teachers explained this idea as follows, “Leadership plays the biggest part, because if the leader doesn’t think IE is important, others won’t. You need someone to spearhead the initiative,” and “The principal has to buy into IE and has to support it ... if the principal doesn’t back it, it won’t work.”

One principal mentioned the idea of resistance when implementing a new initiative. Others, however, believed that the principal could “bring” the approach to the school, be the “seed” and continue to endorse it, even when resistance is experienced. The principal remarked,

We have to bring awareness of IE to the school. We have to start with the principal. All I can do is to bring the knowledge there ...There is a lot of resistance. You will have to keep presenting it, you keep presenting it. It will take two to three times. The staff may call it fluff.

The effective implementation and sustainment of IE depends on effective leadership in schools (Bernauer, 2002; Gerber, 1998; Detert et al., 2000). The same is true for QM. Daugherty (1996), Sallis (1997), and Weller and McElwee (1997) believe that QM starts at the top and that the first and key step in implementing QM is to obtain distinct and visible commitment and support from leadership. Detert et al., (2000, 159), however, believe that the “buying into of new behaviours” is crucial for the effective implementation of any new approach, including IE. This implies that principals provide an appropriate model for staff to follow which is consistent with the values of leaders (Yu, Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). Without the support and modelling of principals, QM cannot be effectively implemented in schools (Detert et al., 2000). Principals are therefore held responsible for their roles as leaders of the quality effort. This implies that they have to educate themselves about QM practices and model the practices in whatever they do.

Leadership’s role and its commitment to QM have to be made clear to everybody in the system and shared values and beliefs have to be communicated to all (Arcaro, 1995). This necessitates a clear vision as well as the effective communication of this vision (Swift, Ross & Omachonu, 1998; Smith, 1999). By creating a clear vision, principals support staff in their understanding of the fact that they are making a meaningful contribution.

Thus it is imperative for principals striving towards IE in their schools to have a clear vision. Frazier (1997) and Detert et al., (2000) also regard a vision as a critical step and the starting point for creating a strategic QM plan for the institution. Many participants supported the importance of a vision. Two principals explained this respectively as follows,

For invitational learning it takes inviting teachers to see the rainbow, to have a dream ...You need to have a vision.

If you don’t have a common vision, you won’t accomplish your goal ... I always say we don’t have a good school because of me, but the principal has to be the key leader in sharing the vision and continuing motivating people towards the vision. The principal has to articulate the vision. I have to walk the talk. I am the head leader of the school. Once you get the people on board, its shared leadership.

According to Yu, Leithwood & Jantzi (2000) the inspiring nature of a vision may promote emotionally stimulating processes. It also holds together the individual empowered professionals (Robinson & Carrington, 2002). Daugherty (1996) is of the opinion that for schools to function effectively, role players should be directed towards a shared vision. The shared values of staff members influence their behaviours and actions, which subsequently have an influence on the quality of the school (Smith & Coldron, 1999; Robinson & Carrington, 2002). The principles of both IE and QM indicate the key role that people (customers) play.

Focus on the Customer

Principals can help teachers to realise that they can make a difference in student performance when being inviting. Since teachers are the “action parts” in classrooms, their role is vital for the effective implementation of IE. IE can lead to a pattern of beliefs and expectations of teachers in the schools that guide their attitude and behaviour (Brinson, 1996; Drejer, 2000). The effectiveness of their influence, however, depends on their attitude and commitment in implementing IE.

1Throughout the interviews the importance of teachers in the implementation of IE and the key focus on students were stressed. One principal asserted,

The principal, you know, sits in a little office, but they [the teachers] make it happen. In Invitational learning it’s about the kids. If we can invite them to learn, my goodness! Here’s the deal, not only to attend conferences, but the principal has to see that it’s carried out. You have to keep on reminding them [the teachers].

A few other principals also confirmed the importance of teachers in realising IE, “Teachers are the key people and I feed the teachers and teachers feed the children. They have the most impact. They are behind closed doors. I have to feed the information... Teachers can nurture the parent community and bring them to school”; “Teachers are the wheels of the programme. It happens in the classrooms. They are the action parts. Their role is very important”; “It would be impossible to implement IE without the teachers. Teachers have to buy into it” (IE consultant); and “The most important thing is teachers. They are not an add-on. They deliver instruction to students.”

The literature confirms that quality will be unlikely to improve in education without recognising that every educational output has “customers” (Dalrymple & Srikanthan, 2002; Kayser, 2003; Waks & Frank, 1999). According to QM 1a customer-focussed organisation’s primary goal involves determining who the customer is and seeking from the customer the characteristics of quality required to meet and to exceed the customer’s needs (Racer 1997; Weller & Melee, 1997; Taylor, 2003). 1Customers are subcategorised into internal and external, with internal customers referring to people within the school, including staff, students, and parents. 1 The communication process between different customers in a school can generate a motivational atmosphere and develops a sense of belonging and importance when customers try to understand each other’s needs (Barry, 1991). It also implies that such an atmosphere may foster teacher collaboration and empowerment. Educator collaboration and support are necessary for school development to be effective (Brandt, 2003; Rhodes & Houghton-Hill, 2000; Richardson, 2003; Wilma, 2003).

Teacher Collaboration and Empowerment

Collaboration between staff in the school is an assumption of IE. Two teachers and a principal respectively expressed their perceptions of staff working together,

If you have a faculty that don’t work together, it’s a hard obstacle to overcome. You can’t start IE without team building.

If you are not part of it, have ownership, it [IE] won’t work. Everybody should be involved.

Teachers play a major role ... If we become a team, a family, working towards the process, we will make it. Also remember that one apple spoils the barrel ... You need to include and invite everyone. People make the building, not the building the people.

Although collaboration between staff members is acknowledged, the quality of relationships can be vital when implementing IE. A teacher and a principal respectively referred to the influence of teacher relationships,

I think that how teachers get along is seen between the lines by students. If a staff member has conflict, it will affect students. Staff should realise that their behaviour affects students and the invitational school.

A little negative talk, negative action of teachers can really pull the school down.

Since staff collaboration plays such an important role, it is essential to select the right staff members. Various participants supported the importance of hiring the right people. The IE consultant succinctly expressed her views as follows:

Hiring, inducting, and indoctrinating new staff members is crucial in sustaining the IE spirit. The most effective way to assure continuity is to appoint the right staff members ... The hiring of the right staff applies to all positions in the school. Lots of times you can’t hire them, so then you have to train them. Everyone is equally important -- the janitor, the secretary, it takes everybody on board.

A teacher supported this view: “Hiring new staff is important ... You have to find the best candidate. If we hire the right people, students are successful, the climate will take over. You don’t create an inviting school. You have an inviting school.” A teacher also warned against incorrect appointments, “Don’t hire sour apples. It takes one person to put a sour apple in the barrel to make the whole barrel sour.”

Collaboration will contribute to the development of a positive school culture that is committed to change and the creation of better learning opportunities for all (Robinson & Carrington, 2002; Rhodes & Houghton-Hill, 2000; Wilms, 2003). Furthermore, collaboration can improve quality, efficiency, and job satisfaction (Swift et al., 1998; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Team members can draw upon strengths and complement each other’s knowledge and skills in becoming more inviting in their schools. When everybody participates in school development, everyone experiences a genuine sense of ownership of the process (Purkey & Strahan, 1995). According to Purkey and Strahan (1995), “membership” is a hallmark of an inviting school. However, the most powerful predictor of learner performance is the quality of relationships among staff (Barth in Purkey & Strahan, 1995). Wilms’ study (2003) also indicates that staff value collaborating with one another.

Since teaching is a lonely profession, there should be opportunities for teachers to share their achievements and problems encountered when employing new strategies for change to happen (Robinson & Carrington, 2002; Bernauer, 2002). Sharing encourages teachers’ reflection and broadens their perspective (Ho-Ming & Ping-Yan, 1999; Dixon, 1998; Blackmore, 2000). It contributes to the development of a positive school culture that is committed to change and the creation of better learning opportunities for all learners (Robinson & Carrington, 2002; Rhodes & Houghton-Hill, 2000). The shared values of members in a school community affect their actions, which subsequently has an influence on the school’s culture (Smith & Coldron, 1999; Robinson & Carrington, 2002). Thus it is essential to identify people who have the potential to work collaboratively in achieving the aims of IE. Principals play a major role in providing opportunities for staff collaboration and their empowerment. Two principals expressed their role in empowering staff, “I’m leading them [the teachers] to places where they don’t want to go. Growth is painful. We work together;” and “I have to walk the talk. I am the head leader of the school. Once you get the people on board, it’s shared leadership.”

Teacher empowerment is based on the belief that people want to feel good and proud of their efforts (Frazier, 1997). It is assumed that everyone has the potential to make a contribution to quality schooling, which is reflected in his/her behavioural and personal contribution to the quality effort (Gallegos, 1996; Frazier, 1997). Empowerment is seen as the fundamental transfer of authority and responsibility that includes the following, the process by which people are allowed to make decisions regarding assigned tasks; people’s involvement in the creation of ways to maintain a productive and satisfying work environment and their involvement in daily problem solving and decision-making (Williams, 1994).

Literature confirms that QM is all about staff collaboration and the empowerment of people so that they can make decisions about how best to improve their practice (Quong & Walker, 1996). Current developments in leadership show a shift from bureaucratic managerial styles to different leadership styles that promote shared decision-making (Campbell, 1997; Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000). Furthermore, principals can help teachers realise that they are making a difference with learners and foster feelings of efficacy (Edwards, Green, & Lyons, 2002). There is also a positive relationship between a principal’s actions and teachers’ affective outcomes such as feelings of trust, respect, job satisfaction, empowerment, higher levels of commitment to institutional goals and perceived leadership effectiveness (Bernauer, 2002; Campbell, 1997; Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000; Edwards et al., 2002; Mahoney, 1997; Bjork, 2000; Edwards et al., 2002; Yu et al. 2000). Mahoney (1997) confirms this by stating, “Successful leaders are able to commit people to action.” Furthermore, IE can lead to a pattern of beliefs and expectations among all role players in the schools that guide their attitude and behaviour (Brinson, 1996; Drejer, 2000).

Commitment to Continuous Improvement

Attaining the prestigious IE award does not mean that the school has “arrived.” It becomes even more important after the honour has been bestowed on the school to continuously demonstrate what it means to be inviting. One participant explained what may happen if there is a lack of commitment to continuous development.

IE has to be revisited ... If you don’t have continuous development, it may die. You have to understand the concept, but you need to have a strong tradition to keep us inviting. Continuous encouragement is needed. . . . It’s human nature to slack off on things. We know what it is to be inviting, but it is not the same as in the beginning. In the beginning we had more discussion, surveys ... to follow through is very important. Don’t stop with surveys. Our school was more successful when we were more inviting.

To reculture and improve schools means to develop collaborative work cultures that focus in a sustained way on the continuous development of teachers in relation to creating and assessing learning conditions for all learners (Fullan in Robinson & Carrington, 2002; Bernauer, 2002). IE and invitational learning (IL) are maintained by the Alliance for Invitational Education as a means of improving classrooms and climates in schools (Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000; The Concept of Invitational Education, 1998).

The responses of participants regarding the necessity of continuous development are supported by literature (Moore, 2000; Robinson & Carrington, 2002; Richardson, 2003). The methods employed for development will, however, depend on the needs of the staff.

The QM paradigm also strives towards constant development and those institutions which practise it engage in continuous improvement (Goetsch & Davis, 1995; Sallis, 1997). Ongoing continuous improvement involves everybody and is both a bottom-up and top-down approach (Frazier, 1997; Swift et al., 1998; De Bruyn, 2003). Schools that are quality minded believe that there is always room for more improvement that better meets their customers’ expectations (Beavis, 1995; Goetsch & Davis, 1995). Continuous improvement implies appropriate training to equip staff with the required knowledge and skills for the implementation of a particular approach.

The Importance of Training

To inculcate IE, it is important to provide suitable training programmes. One principal described her school’s way of training in these words,

We started with [IE consultant] and brought her back for a refreshment course. She reinforced it and the next year we plan to take it on ourselves, I mean the workshop. You have to give invitations in small doses. They [teachers] can otherwise be overwhelmed ... We also have periodic meetings one-on-one ... We also got sponsors for the Atlanta Conference.

A teacher elaborated on this comment,

A one-time shot is not enough. You need a mentoring programme and a person who is committed to help and support us [teachers]. This is especially true for isolated cases of uninviting behaviour ... Being inviting is intentional. It doesn’t always come naturally.

A few participants referred to the importance of conducting training in a venue away from school to inculcate IE. The IE consultant said,

From my experience, I learned that one of the best ways to move a group of teachers from the awareness and understanding levels to the application and adoption levels to get all staff on board is to have a retreat dedicated to IE. Much can be accomplished where staff meets away from school... It will take an effort on their part, but it’s worth it ... It can speed up the process by one year, a three-day retreat. Get people in the retreat where they are away from usual worries and chores.

The idea of having a retreat away from school was supported by a teacher. She also elaborated on when, how, and by whom such programmes should be presented,

You have to make professional development appealing. I went to a retreat ... I don’t want to catch up work once I get back to school ... I love a hands-on workshops. I don’t like to be lectured to, I want to participate ... I would like to have someone who is not on the staff who has a lot of experience, who doesn’t have attachments to the staff, who is not biased. It should be a venue away from the school.

Another principal was more explicit about the timing of IE programmes and elaborated on the inviting atmosphere of such programmes.

At the beginning of school or in summer teachers are more relaxed to implement IE. If individuals’ minds are too overloaded it won’t work... For the workshop have food, feed the body and soul, we all like to eat ... Also make it aesthetically pleasant to everyone ... Keep it within two hours.

One assistant principal disagreed with this view, “We feel comfortable at school to be trained by people in our own building. We feel more comfortable to ask questions.”

The IE consultant referred to various strategies for IE training. “First I think they should read the fastback [a publication] of IE. They [the staff] also need to see the video journal of education on IE.” The importance of a video on IE and visits to schools that have successfully implemented IE was also supported by a teacher,

One thing you need is a video of IE showing how it’s working. You should make visits to schools that are working. This is the first thing. You have to show that it is working. If an outsider comes in, they could say it won’t work. You can talk, talk, talk, but until they see it, it won’t work.

All professions require a continuous development of knowledge and skills, and teaching is no exception (Sparks & Richardson, 1997; Somers & Sikorova, 2002; Vincent & Ross, 2001). It is also unanimously recognised that a teacher’s professional development does not end the initial pre-service training (Ho-Ming & Ping-Yan, 1999; Somers & Sikorova, 2002). The knowledge and skills of staff members in schools over time tend to deteriorate, while new developments in educational thinking make their teaching skills outdated or inefficient (Campbell, 1997). Moreover, teachers will not change their teaching practice unless they learn new ways to teach (Sparks & Richardson, 1997; Wilms, 2003).

It is obvious from the responses that the views of participants differ on where, when, how, and by whom programmes should be implemented. Literature also reveals different perspectives. Trent (1997) and Sachs (1999) recommend that staff go to another setting for a few days, away from the school’s day-to-day routine. Burke (1997) and Ribisch (1999), however, believe that professional development cannot be conducted in the same type of environment for all teachers. This implies that schools have to select programmes for IE that suit them best.

The necessity of training lies at the heart of QM (Swift et al., 1998; Detert et al., 2000). The implementation of QM usually begins with awareness training of role players which is viewed as an organised development exercise designed to improve team members’ knowledge of and skills for performing various functions and activities of QM (Lewis 1993).

Conclusion

It is clear from the findings that the schools agreed upon the major aspects required for the effective implementation of IE, the key role of leadership, a focus on the customer, the necessity of teacher collaboration and empowerment, continuous improvement and the obligation of training. These aspects are also regarded as essential principles of QM.

The key role of leadership describes principals as visionaries who guide the school community in its continuous development towards being inviting. Although it is accepted that leadership is the key to any school improvement, little change is possible without the active contribution of teachers. Their influence on students as primary customers may have a crucial influence on quality learning. One of the most important things that professionals can do in inviting schools is to work collaboratively as a team of empowered professionals. Although the study revealed sound QM practices in applying IE assumptions in schools, the necessity of continuous improvement by means of constant training was also indicated in the study.

Implementing IE encompasses a long and arduous process which may also be difficult to sustain. These schools prove that implementing the paradigm has taken a long time and that the journey is not over yet. Schools considering a process of school improvement through IE should realise that this approach is not designed to give fast fixes to issues in education. However, it does have the potential to bring about tremendous change in the quality of schools. IE provides an opportunity for people to work together and reconfigure education and learning.

References

Anonymous. (2001/2002). New staff development standards issued. Reading Today, 19(3), 17-18.

Arcaro, J. S. (1995). Quality in Education. An implementation handbook. Delray Beach, Florida, St Lucie Press.

Asbill, K. & Gonzalez, M. L. (2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1), 14-27.

Barry, T. J. (1991). Management excellence through quality. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Process.

Beavis, A. K. (1995). An attempt to implement TQM: A principal reflects. The Practising Administrator, 17(3), 4-6, 22-23.

Bernauer, J. (2002). Five keys to unlock continuous improvement. Kappa Delta Pi Record,38(2), 89-92.

Bjork, C. (2000). Responsibility for improving the quality of teaching in Japanese schools: The role of the principal in professional development efforts. Education and Society, 18(3), 21-43.

Blackmore, J. (2000). Developing conditions to teacher professional renewal. Teacher Learning Network, 7(1), 3-5.

1Bonstingl, J. J. (1996). On the road to quality: Turning stumbling blocks into stepping stones. The School Administrator, 53, 16-24.

Brandt, R. (2003). Is this school a learning organization? 10 ways to tell. Journal of Staff Development, 24(1), 10-17.

Brinson, K. H. (1996). Invitational education as a logical, ethical and democratic means to reform. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 4(1), 81-94.

Burke, K. (1997). Responding to participants’ learning styles during staff development. Clearing-House, 70(6), 299-301.

Campbell, B. (1997). Professional development: Beyond the on-day serving. The Practising Administrator, 19(2), 26-35.

1Cramer, S. R. (1996). Assumptions central to the quality movement. Clearing House, 69(6), 360-364.

Dalrymple, J. F. & Srikanthan, G. (2002). Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Educaton, 8(3), 215-224.

Daugherty, A. (1996). Total Quality Education. Contemporary Education, 67(2), 83-87.

De Bruyn, P. P. (2003). A management strategy for the improvement of the effectiveness of secondary schools through total quality management. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Potchefstroom University, South Africa.

1Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Detert, J. R., Kopel, M. E. B., Mauriel, J. J. & Jenni, R. W. (2000). Quality management in the US high schools: Evidence from the field. Journal of School Leadership, 10(2), 158-185.

De Vos, A.S. (2005). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. In A. S. de Vos, H. Strydom, C. B. Fouche & C. S. L. Delport(Eds.), Research at grassroots for the social sciences and human service professions (3rd ed., pp. 333-349) Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Dreher, E. D. (2002). Leading the Toa: The energizing power of respect. The Learning Organisation, 9(5), 206-213.

Drejer, A. (2000). Organisational learning and competence development. The Learning Organisation, 7(4), 206-220.

Edwards, J. L., Green, K. E. & Lyons, C. A. (2002). Personal empowerment, efficacy, and environmental characteristics. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 67-86.

Egley, R. (2003). Invitational leadership, Does it make a difference? Journal of Invitational Education, 9, 57-70.

Fouche, C.B. (2005). Qualitative designs. In A. S. de Vos, H. Strydom, C. B. Fouche & C. S. L. Delport(Eds.), Research at grassroots for the social sciences and human service professions (3rd ed., pp. 267-273) Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Frazier, A. (1997). A roadman for quality transformation in education. Boca Raton, Florida: St Lucie Press.

Friedland, S. (1999). Violence reduction? Start with school culture. School Administrator, 56(6), 14-16.

Gallegos, G. (1996). Transforming America’s schools. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 25 - 27.

Gerber, R. (1998). How do workers learn in their work? The Learning Organisation,5(4), 168-175.

Goetsch, D. L. & Davis, S. (1995). Implementing total quality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hahn, W. G. & Bart, B. D. (2003). Applying quality management process-improvement principles to learning in reading courses: An improved learning and retention method. Journal of Education for Business, 78(4), 181-184.

Ho-Ming, N. G. & Ping-Yan, C. (1999). School-based teacher development in Guangzhou, China. International Studies in Educational Administration, 27(2), 32-42.

Inviting School Awards program. (2005). The Invitational Education Forum, 26(2), 18.

Johnson, B. & Christenson, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Kayser, K. (2003). Using total quality management tools in human service intervention research. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, 4(2), 171-187.

Kirkman, B.L. & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.

Kitchens, A. (1998). Good teachers - Who are they and what can they do? Journal of Developmental Education, 22(1), 38.

Kok, J. C. & Van Der Merwe, M. P. (October, 2002). Invitational Education: Adding uniqueness - An empirical study. Paper presented at the 18th International Conference of the IAIE, Kennesaw State College, Atlanta, GA.

Lewis, J. (1993). Implementing total quality in education to create great schools. Westbury, New York: The National Center to Save our Schools.

Mahoney, J. A. (1998). The inviting school superintendent. Journal of Inviting Theory and Practice, 5(2), 97-105.

Moore, K. B. (2000). Successful and effective professional development. Scholastic Early Childhood Today,15(3), 14-16.

Novak, J. M. & Purkey, W. W. (2001). Invitational education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation.

Oakland, J. S. & Oakland, S. (1998). The links between people management, customer satisfaction and business results. Total Quality Management, 9(4 & 5), 185-190.

Partee, G. L. & Sammon, G. M. (2001). A strategic approach to staff development. Principal Leadership, 1(6), 14-17.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peer, K. S. & Rakich, J. S. (2000). Accreditation and continuous quality improvement in athletic training. Journal of Athletic Training, 35(2), 188-193.

Poggenpoel, M. (1998). Data analysis in qualitative research. In A. S. de Vos, H. Strydom, C. B. Fouche & C. S. L. Delport(Eds.), Research at grassroots for the social sciences and human service professions (3rd ed., pp. 334-353) Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

Poggenpoel, M., Nolte, A., Dörfling, C., Greeff, M., Gross, E., Muller, M., et al. (1994). Community views on informal housing environment: Implication for health promotion. South African Journal of Sociology, 25(4), 131-136.

Purkey, W. W. & Strahan, D. (1995). School transformation through invitational education. Researching in The Schools, 2(2), 1-6.

Quong, T. & Walker, A. (1996). TQM and school restructuring, a case study. School Organization, June, 16(2), 219-231.

Rhodes, C. & Houghton-Hill, S. (2000). The linkage of continuing professional development and the classroom experience of pupils, barriers perceived by senior managers in some secondary schools. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(3), 423-435.

Ribisch, K. H. (1999). The facilitator as agent of change. ELT Journal, 53(2), 115-121.

Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 401-406.

Robinson, R. & Carrington, S. (2002). Professional development for inclusive schooling. International Journal of Educational Management,16(5), 239-247.

Rudestam, K. E. & Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sachs, A. (1999). Solid foundation: NSDC standards are the rock of Maryland schools to build on. Journal of Staff Development, 20(1), 23-24, 26-28.

Sallis E. (1997). Total quality management in education (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Smith, P.A.C. (1999). The learning organization ten years on: A case study. The Learning Organisation, 6(5), 217-224.

Smith, R. & Coldron, J. (1999). Conditions for learning as teacher. Journal of In-Service Education, 25(2), 245-260.

Somers, J. & Sikorova, E. (2002). The effectiveness of in-service education on teachers: Course for influencing teachers’ practice. Journal of In-Service Education, 28(1), 95-114.

Sparks, D. & Richardson, J. (1997). A primer on professional development, Journal of Staff Development, 18(4), 1-8.

Steyn, G. M. (1993). Die skepping van 'n uitnodigende skoolomgewing in 'n aantal Amerikaanse Uitnodigende Skole (The creation of an inviting school environment in a number of American inviting schools). Acta Academica,25(1), 188-135.

Steyn, G.M. (1994). Hoe bevorder uitnodigende skole die selfkonsep van leerlinge? (How does inviting schools enhance the self-concept of students?)Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe, 34(1), 52-63.

Swift, J. A., Ross, J. E. & Omachonu, V. K. (1998). Principles of total quality (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, Florida: St Lucie Press.

Taylor, G. (2003). Quality of management or management of quality? A critical analysis of approaches to the evaluation of quality management in UK schools, 53(3), 24-32.

The concept of invitational education. (1998). Journal of Developmental Education, 22(1), 38-39.

Thomas, R.M. & Brubaker, D.L. (2000). Theses and dissertations. A guide to planning, research, and writing. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Trent, L.M.Y. (1997). Enhancement of the school climate by reducing teacher burnout: Using an invitational approach. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 4(2), 103-114.

Vincent, A. & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training, determine learning styles, personality types and multiple intelligence online. The Learning Organisation, 8(1), 36-43.

Waks, S. S. & Frank, M. (1999). Application of the Total Quality Management approach principles and the ISO 9000 Standards in engineering education. European Journal of Education, 24(3), 249-258.

Warren, C.A.B. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method (pp. 83-202). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

1Weller, L. D. & McElwee, G. (1997). Strategic management of quality: An American and British perspective. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 7, 201-213.

Williams, R. L. (1994). Essentials of Total Quality Management. New York: Amacom.

Wilms, W. W. (2003). Altering the structure and culture of American public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(8), 606-615.

Yu, H., Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment to change in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 368-389.