The Effective School Administration Model in Accordance with the “One District, One Quality School” Policy under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office Phayao
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to: (1) examine the components and current conditions of effective school administration under the “One District One Quality School” policy in schools under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office Phayao; (2) develop a model of effective school administration aligned with the policy; and (3) evaluate the appropriateness and feasibility of the developed model. A mixed-methods research design was employed, guided by the quality management framework of the PDCA (Plan–Do–Check–Act) cycle integrated with the Ministry of Education’s “One District One Quality School” policy. The research setting comprised schools under the Secondary Educational Service Area Office Phayao. Key informants for the interviews included nine participants selected through purposive sampling. The sample used to validate the model components and evaluate its appropriateness and feasibility consisted of 255 participants, including educational administrators, school administrators, and teachers, selected through simple random sampling. Research instruments included an interview form, questionnaire, focus group discussion guidelines, and an evaluation form. Data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and descriptive content analysis.
The findings revealed that: 1) Effective school administration consisted of five key components: infrastructure and student support systems, school administrators, teachers and educational personnel, administrative management, learning management, and students. 2) the developed administrative model comprised five main elements—principles, objectives, operational processes, evaluation, and success conditions—implemented through the IAMLS mechanism under the PDCA cycle. 3) The evaluation results revealed that the proposed model achieved the highest level of appropriateness and feasibility. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by proposing the IAMLS Model, an effective school administration framework that integrates system theory, the PDCA cycle, and the CIPP evaluation model in a practical manner. The model provides a systematic guideline for improving and strengthening schools under the “One District One Quality School” policy, particularly in promoting systematic management, stakeholder participation, and sustainable improvement in student quality.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions appearing in the Journal it is the responsibility of the author of the article, and does not constitute the view and responsibility of the editorial team.
References
กาญจนา พิชญเสรี. (2561). การบริหารสถานศึกษาเพื่อยกระดับคุณภาพการเรียนรู้. กรุงเทพฯ: จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน (สพฐ.). (2564). แนวทางการบริหารจัดการสถานศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน (สพฐ.).
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน (สพฐ.). (2566). แนวทางการพัฒนาโรงเรียนคุณภาพตามนโยบาย 1 อำเภอ 1 โรงเรียนคุณภาพ. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน (สพฐ.).
สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาขั้นพื้นฐาน. (2567). รายงานผลการดำเนินนโยบาย 1 อำเภอ 1 โรงเรียนคุณภาพ. กรุงเทพฯ: กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ.
สำนักงานสภาพัฒนาการเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ. (2561). ยุทธศาสตร์ชาติ พ.ศ. 2561–2580. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักนายกรัฐมนตรี.
Bush, T. (2019). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice. (2nd ed.). Sage.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. MIT Press.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.
Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. (5th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID-19 – school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
OECD. (2020). School leadership and education system reform. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/8b7a2d3c-en
OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
Sallis, E. (2014). Total quality management in education. (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Sammons, P. (2018). School effectiveness and school improvement: A review of the research literature. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9320-4
Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness: A critical review of the knowledge base. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7459-8
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Press.
UNESCO. (2022). Global education monitoring report 2022: Non-state actors in education. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
