School Quality Satisfaction Survey

Abstract

The School Quality Satisfaction Survey (SQSS) is a 44-item instrument developed in 1997 by K. Suba to evaluate stakeholder perceptions of the quality of education delivered by elementary schools. The survey specifically assesses the opinions of three key groups—parents, teachers, and administrators—regarding the characteristics that define an excellent elementary school. Furthermore, it measures their current perceptions about the presence or absence of these characteristics within their own school environment, facilitating a comprehensive comparison between ideal expectations and realized satisfaction.

Keywords

School Quality, Satisfaction, Elementary Education, Perception, Parents, Teachers, Administrators, Educational Assessment, Quality of Education, Gap Analysis.

Authors

K. Suba

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SQSS is dual: first, to identify and quantify the characteristics stakeholders (parents, teachers, and administrators) deem essential for an excellent elementary school, establishing a set of quality expectations. Second, the instrument aims to measure the degree to which these stakeholders perceive their current school situation as meeting these established expectations. This design allows for the calculation of a satisfaction “gap” between the ideal and the actual quality delivered.

The instrument is designed to provide school districts and educational leaders with critical data necessary for quality improvement initiatives, allowing them to focus resources on areas where satisfaction levels are lowest or where the perceived gap between expectation and reality is widest across different stakeholder groups.

Construct

The SQSS measures the overarching construct of School Quality Satisfaction, which is operationalized through the assessment of 44 specific characteristics grouped into five distinct dimensions. These dimensions represent various facets critical to educational excellence and stakeholder experience.

The five core categories measured are: Physical Attributes (e.g., facilities and appearance), Attention to Individual Needs (e.g., responsiveness and personalized attention), Instructional Leadership (e.g., curriculum relevance and homework practices), Community Involvement (e.g., partnership and shared purpose), and Learning Outcomes (e.g., academic goal achievement and performance records).

Validity

The SQSS was developed based on established characteristics of quality education, suggesting strong face and content validity, particularly within the context of Total Quality Management (TQM) principles applied to educational settings. The initial investigation included a principal components factor analysis to explore the dimensional structure of the scale.

The analysis yielded a single interpretable factor, reinforcing the instrument’s focus on the overall concept of school quality satisfaction. While the author maintains five conceptual sub-categories for diagnostic utility, the statistical evidence supports the internal consistency and underlying structure of the scale as a measure of unified school quality perception.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was assessed using alpha coefficients during a pilot study involving three elementary schools. The results demonstrated consistently high levels of reliability across all three respondent groups (parents, teachers, and administrators) and for both measurement dimensions (Excellent School expectation and Your School satisfaction).

Overall reliability scores ranged impressively from 0.84 to 0.93. Specific alpha coefficients reported include: Parents—Excellent School (0.92) and Parents—Your School (0.92); Teacher—Excellent School (0.91) and Teacher—Your School (0.84); and Administrators—Excellent School (0.93) and Administrators—Your School (0.84). These high coefficients suggest the instrument is highly stable and reliable in measuring the intended latent construct within these stakeholder groups.

Factor Analysis

A factor analysis utilizing the principal components extraction method was performed on the 44 items. This analysis indicated the presence of one primary, interpretable factor, confirming the underlying unitary construct of overall school quality satisfaction.

Despite the statistical finding of a single dominant factor, the author elected to organize the 44 items into five conceptually distinct categories for practical reporting and interpretability. These categories are: (1) Physical Attributes (Items 1–4); (2) Attention to Individual Needs (Items 5–24); (3) Instructional Leadership (Items 25–32); (4) Community Involvement (Items 33–38); and (5) Learning Outcomes (Items 39–44).

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report perception and expectation survey.

Format: 44 items, utilizing two distinct Likert-type scales depending on whether the respondent is rating the “Excellent School” (Expectation) or “Your School” (Satisfaction).

Language Available: English (Original study language).

Population Group: Elementary school stakeholders (Parents, Teachers, and Administrators).

Age Group: Adults (Parents, Teachers, Administrators).

Population Details: The initial pilot sample included participants from three school districts (representing urban, suburban, and rural areas) within Pennsylvania, covering eight elementary schools.

Test Methodology: Aggregated mean scores are reported for each item and category. Data analysis employs Gap Analysis, which measures the difference between expectation scores and satisfaction scores among the three respondent groups, providing diagnostic insight into quality deficits.

Scoring Scales:

• For Excellent Schools (Expectation): 1 = Not Essential; 2 = Slightly Essential; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Essential; and 5 = Absolutely Essential.
• For Your School (Satisfaction): 1 = Not at All; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Almost Always; 5 = Always; and 6 = Don’t Know.

Keywords

Educational Leadership, Elementary Schools, Stakeholder Perception, SERVQUAL adaptation, TQM, Physical Environment, Learning Outcomes, Suba K. (1997).

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Based on the source, the author completed the PhD Dissertation at Pennsylvania State University (1997).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published as a PhD Dissertation in 1997. Specific information regarding current usage permissions or associated fees is not provided in the source material. Researchers interested in utilizing the SQSS should contact the author or the degree-granting institution, Pennsylvania State University, for formal usage rights.

Reference’s

The SQSS development drew upon established quality management frameworks and educational research. Key documents cited include:

• Babakus, E., and Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services: Empirical investigation. HSR: Health Services Research 26:767–86.
• Hartman, W. T. (1994). TQM goes to school. University Park, PA: Center for Total Quality Schools.
• Jacobson, L. (1997). PTA issues parent involvement standards for schools. Education Week 16:8.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology. (1996). The Malcolm Baldrige national quality award: 1996 award criteria. Gaithersburg, MD: United States Department of Commerce Technology Administration.
• Suba, K. (1997). School Quality Satisfaction Survey: Assessing expectation for and satisfaction with quality of education provided by elementary schools. PhD Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

Items of the School Quality Satisfaction Survey

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Physical Attributes

1. Schools have modern-looking equipment.
2. The school’s physical facilities appear to be safe and in compliance with building code regulations.
3. Teachers and staff are neat in appearance.
4. The school’s physical facilities provide a neat and clean educational environment.

Attention to Needs of Individuals

5. The school staff carries out promised actions such as educational activities, by the time agreed upon.
6. The school responds correctly to the needs of a parent or student the first time.
7. Teachers and staff inform students and parents of the date and time of educational activities.
8. Teachers and staff give prompt and accurate information to students and parents.
9. Teachers and staff are respectful with the students.
10. Teachers and staff are respectful with their student’s parents.
11. Informational materials associated with the education (such as pamphlets and letters) received by parents are visu- ally appealing, grammatically correct, and factual.
12. The school gives students individual attention.
13. The school gives parents individual attention.
14. The school and school activity hours are convenient for their students.
15. The school and school activity hours are convenient for the parents.
16. The teachers and staff understand the specific needs of their students.
17. The teachers and staff understand the specific needs of parents.
18. The teachers and staff are helpful to their students.
19. The teachers and staff are helpful to parents.
20. Teachers and staff respond to parent questions in a timely manner.
21. Students feel safe in their interactions with the school staff.
22. Parents feel safe in their interactions with the school staff.
23. When a student has a problem, the school shows a sincere interest in solving it.
24. When a parent has a problem, the school shows a sincere interest in solving it.

Instructional Leadership

25. The school has a curriculum that is meaningful and relevant to the students and to the community.
26. The school has a curriculum that encourages the students becoming involved in their education.
27. Homework is required to be performed by the students on a regular basis.
28. Homework is assigned as a review of the instructional activity in the classroom.
29. Homework is assigned which may require further guidance and assistance from the parent.
30. The behavior of teachers and staff instills confidence in students.
31. The behavior of teachers and staff instills confidence in the parents.
32. Teachers and staff have knowledge to answer parents’ educational questions.

Community Involvement

33. The school includes the community in the development of the curriculum.
34. The school works with the community as equal partners to set and meet goals for the students.
35. The school works with the students and their parents as equal partners to set and meet goals for the students.
36. The school has individuals in leadership positions who invest time to develop a common sense of purpose in the school community.
37. The school promotes parental involvement in the education of their child (for example by volunteering).
38. The school offers parenting skills classes to the parents on a voluntary basis.

Learning Outcomes

39. The school maintains accurate and up-to-date student performance records (for example assessment tests and report cards).
40. The school’s primary purpose is to assist the students in achieving the district’s academic goals.
41. The school promotes methods that focus on teaching the basic content areas (for example, reading, math, science, and social studies).
42. Teaching methods are utilized to foster creative thinking skills.
43. Student achievement results are used to assess the overall academic performance of the school.
44. Students achieve at or above an average level in their academic subjects.