com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Educational Management Administration & Leadership can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Article
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 113 The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1741143213499258 emal.sagepub.com
Abstract The concept and practice of strategic planning, while entrenched in educational institutions in the West, is just catching on in Kenya. While literature emphasizes the importance of collaborative strategic planning, it does not indicate the challenges presented by collaboratively engaging in strategic planning. This article reports on findings of a study of how one Kenyan secondary school engaged in strategic planning. The study aimed to find out how the various stakeholders in the school are involved in strategic planning. The study adopted a qualitative case study approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Findings show that, although the school stakeholders were involved in different ways in the strategic planning process, the school did not achieve a collaborative strategic plan because the stakeholders approached the process disjointedly. In addition, lack of knowledge about what strategic planning constitutes rendered some of the stakeholders passive participants. Findings illustrate that strategic planning is a concept and process that is challenging for school stakeholders and hence, for contexts similar to the one in which the study took place, there is need for sensitization and training of school stakeholders on the strategic planning process in order to build capacity for schools to reap benefits from it. Keywords Strategic planning, strategic leadership, school planning, school management
Introduction
Over the years, school managers have used annual development plans to ultimately improve the quality of students learning (Davies, 2006). However, the main focus of these annual development plans has been the distribution of duties and resources within the school. According to Stoll and Fink (1996), a school development plan mainly focuses on budget control and accountability. It does not establish a dual commitment to short-term and long-term results. Conversely, literature argues that strategic planning enables a commitment to both short- and long-term goals and therefore enables schools to envision their future (Davies, 2004; Davies et al., 2005).
Corresponding author: Jane F. A. Rarieya, Human Sciences Research Council, P. O. Private Bag X07, Dalbridge 4014, South Africa. Email: jrarieya@hsrc.ac.za
Although schools in various parts of the world, especially in the West, began adopting strategic planning in the mid-1980s (Kaufman and Herman, 1991; Conley, 1992), this practice is relatively new in Kenya. Whilst the term strategic planning has been commonly associated with the corporate world in this context, it is now a practice that is slowly being adopted by educational institutions. However, this is a process that has largely been driven by the Ministry of Education and it is widely acknowledged that schools have not embraced strategic planning as a whole. This can be attributed to prevalent planning practices in schools that are often shortterm and usually based on the immediate needs of the school. Strategic planning, on the other hand, is long-term, analytical as well as visionary, and therefore calls for a different way of thinking than has been required in the past in developing school development plans (Davies and Davies, 2010; Quong and Walker, 2010). Further, it is policy to transfer heads of schools every three to five years for purposes of efficiency and effectiveness but this has only served to accentuate the temporal nature of headship. Consequently, head teachers see their time in schools as short lived and are unwilling to engage in any long-term plans. This article, therefore, presents findings of a study that set out to find out how one school was carrying out the strategic planning process. The study school was specifically identified as the research site because its members had been through the strategic planning process in the school and were willing to share their experiences. The study aimed to establish the nature of stakeholder involvement in the schools strategic planning process. More specifically, it sought to establish who was involved in the process and how they were involved.
Hence, following Kenyas adoption of free primary education for all in 2003, the Ministry launched its strategic plan for 20062011 (Ministry of Education, 2005) in which it identified the objectives of various current education reforms such as free primary and secondary education, as well as the introduction of information technology in all secondary schools and how these reforms were to be sustained. It was expected that the development of such a strategic plan would lead to a commitment towards increasing educational opportunities for Kenyans as well as the provision of quality education. The now established free primary schooling and the onset of free secondary schooling in the country in the last three years have meant that schools have had to change their approaches to planning as they need to establish ways of meeting the new demands placed on them by large classes and shrinking resources. The Ministrys strategic plan provides a framework within which district action plans are to be developed, leading a process which would then cascade to the schools and other learning institutions. At the launch of the Ministrys strategic plan, every district was expected to develop its
2
strategic plan and implement it among the schools within its jurisdiction. Likewise, the same was expected of schools. As a result, government schools (public schools) are currently undertaking strategic planning. However, the implementation of the strategic planning process in schools has presented challenges to school leaders. For example, in one of the district education offices in Central Kenya, the headteachers were directed to engage in strategic planning and to communicate the same to their school stakeholders. They were expected to guide and assist the other school stakeholders in the strategic planning process because, as the heads of schools, they are in charge of school daily routines, including guiding and assisting staff. However, the headteachers were not inducted in the strategic planning process, and modalities for the school to carry out strategic planning were not clearly stated, inevitably presenting schools with challenges. Although our search for documented literature on the strategic planning process in Kenyan schools has drawn a blank, research done in South Africa (Xaba, 2006) attests to the apparent difficulty of engaging in the strategic planning process in schools. First, Xaba notes that a number of schools have hired service providers to retrain their management staff on the strategic planning process. He further argues that, since strategic planning was introduced as an external requirement by the Department of Education, schools lack commitment to the process. Xaba found that some schools went to the extent of borrowing other schools plans in order to submit them to the department. The Kenyan context is not very different from that described by Xaba. Indeed, during the first authors tenure as a deputy headteacher in a secondary school, her school failed to develop a strategic plan because they were not aware of the strategic planning process. Moreover, our interactions with school leaders in the East African region have shown that some schools, unable to develop their strategic plans, employ consultant strategic planners to prepare these for them. In other cases, the headteacher produces the document single-handedly, maybe as a result of their experience with the preparation of school development plans. The complexity of the strategic planning process has been further compounded by the Ministry of Education school management guide (1999) which is still widely used by headteachers. The guide implies that development plans may be prepared by the headteachers with or without wider consultation among school stakeholders, as illustrated in the following excerpt:
Heads are also required to prepare plans that are feasible, that can be implemented and are agreeable within the school and wider community. The head teacher must have a mission for the school and a set of aims that underpin the school development plan . . . (Ministry of Education, 1999: 4)
However, several authors (e.g. Davies, 2004, 2006; Eacott, 2008; Lane et al., 2005; Stollar et al., 2006) affirm the importance of collaborative strategic planning and emphasize the involvement of stakeholders, thereby indicating that strategic planning is a joint process in which going it alone will not be successful. For example, Stoll and Fink (1996: 52) assert that among the most successful schools in the development of school-based initiatives are those whose headteachers spend time to facilitate staff planning together. Young (2009) further explains that strategic planning should be about stakeholders in the school voicing their concerns and suggestions for improvement, reviewing information drawn from inquiry in the school and synthesizing the information into a vision for the direction of the school. Clearly, collaboration of those involved in strategic planning seems to be a prerequisite to successful planning.
3
Methodology
The study employed a qualitative case study design as it entailed an examination of how those affected by strategic planning processes in the school interpret their situation. This research design enabled an in-depth understanding of strategic planning within the school environment in order to establish the how of strategic planning in a school. The design also allowed for deep probing and analysis of the strategic planning process in the school, so as to develop a detailed and full understanding of that case within the schools specific context (Biggam, 2008). Towards this end, two methods of data collection were employed; semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Three one-on-one interviews were carried out with the deputy headteacher, a teacher and the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) chair. The headteacher and the Board of Governors (BOG) chair declined to take part in face-to-face interviews and preferred to give written responses to the interview schedules that were shared with them. Two group interviews were used with parents and students. Document analysis was also used to seek exact details on how the strategic planning process was carried out. Documents in which strategic planning was discussed such as letters, official circulars and minutes of meetings of staff and PTA were subsequently analysed. They were also used as evidence to corroborate claims that stakeholders had been involved in the strategic planning process. Ten participants who are directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the school were drawn from a cross-section of the school stakeholders. These included the headteacher, deputy headteacher, teachers, students, parents, a member of the BOG and a member of the PTA. Therefore, generalization was not the goal of the study. The intention was a deeper understanding of the viability of collaborative strategic planning and, consequently, the lessons that can be drawn from the case. Data analysis commenced concurrently with data collection through reflecting on the collected data at the end of each interview. Recorded interviews were transcribed after each interview. Ongoing analysis influenced the scope and direction of succeeding interviews. A document summary form enabled the identification of data relevant to the study. All the data gathered from the interviews, document analysis and notes made during interviews were coded using the research questions and literature review as an analysis framework. Thereafter, the codes were categorized, from which patterns were established and themes drawn. These were then used to make propositions and draw conclusions (Creswell, 2003).
in the study, despite having been informed that their views were just as important as those who were actively involved in the process. For their part, the parents were unable to share what their understanding was but nevertheless were expected to participate in the achievement of identified strategic targets. Those stakeholders who understood what strategic planning was all about described it as directional, thereby enabling the school to attain its goals. For example, one participant defined strategic planning as a road map for the achievement of clear goals and objectives, taking into account availability of resources, all challenges and their mitigation, for the school development within a specified period of time (Interview, 28 April 2010). They also described strategic planning as a means of charting the future of the institution, keeping in mind its present state: It is a plan of how we would want to be in the next five years, considering how far we want to have gone, what we want to have achieved, and improved on (Interview, 12 May 2010). In addition, they viewed strategic planning as being time-bound and described it as a process that provides support to the school structure set, for the achievement of school goals and development that the school wishes to achieve within a period of time (Interview, 28 April 2010). Interestingly, they were of the view that strategic plans should have a time period of five to twenty years. This period was based on the stakeholders projection that there will be gradual availability of resources necessary for the implementation process in that time span. In addition, they cited this period as being appropriate for the gradual implementation and evaluation of the strategic plan objectives. Further, the stakeholders defined strategic planning as an ongoing process of identifying and programming the institutions priorities in order to organize how they are to be achieved: It is a way of thinking [of] how the school can grow by specifying development targets for each year and achieving them within the period, before moving on to a subsequent target in the following year (Interview, 28 April 2010). However, a closer examination of the participants definitions of strategic planning indicates that in this context not much consideration is given to the long-term vision and bigger picture of the school. Instead, the stakeholders identified the targets in isolation and planned their accomplishment in a sequential manner. They did not establish linkages between these targets nor did they see them in terms of achieving the broader school vision. Indeed, Davies and Davies (2010: 6) point out that strategy provides the framework or the template against which to set short-term activities . . . The short term and long term should not be seen as sequential with one done first and then the other; instead, they should be seen as parallel actions with one informing the other. In essence, the only aspect of change that had occurred in the school as a result of the introduction of strategic planning was the duration of the plan. Further, Davies and Davies (2010) identify strategic planning as a stance. However, in this particular school, it was difficult to establish what the strategic stance of the school was. What exactly the school wished to be strategic about was not clear; neither was it clear what strategic activities they had engaged in that would place them in a strategic position in comparison to the other schools in the district or even nationally. In addition, the notion of strategic planning as an all-inclusive process in which all the stakeholders are involved directly was not brought to the fore in the interviews. Additionally, study findings indicate that the concept of strategic planning was only clear among a category of stakeholders such as the headteacher, the BOG Chair, deputy headteacher, the chair of the PTA and students. This was as a result of sensitization and involvement of these stakeholders in the strategic planning process. As stated earlier, those not actively involved in the planning process, such as the parents and some teachers, were unable to say what strategic planning was about. The foregoing suggests that when one gets involved in the strategic planning process, one has a better understanding of it and is therefore able to articulate ones understanding too.
5
It is also possible that because the plan was the product of a few people, it may not have been the best possible strategic plan for their school. The stakeholders failed to own the strategic plan because of the individualized approach that was adopted in developing it. All groups left the
6
compilation work to the Planning Group without coming together to discuss how their different strategies could be linked. This led to a lack of responsibility or accountability for the strategic plan. There clearly seemed to be a need for capacity building among the stakeholders to establish their joint commitment and meaningful involvement so as to make helpful contributions for the success of the strategic planning process.
Values are important in strategic planning (Eacott, 2008), as they underpin the school vision and they identify expected student outcomes. However, student voice in more areas of the strategic plan may have improved collaboration, since the strategic plan is geared to improving students performance.
7
Furthermore, the BOG members played the role of providing the history of the school, and in so doing, they revealed the vision of the school founders in setting up the institution. As one participant pointed out:
. . . the BOG members also participated in the strategic planning process. They gave . . . the historical background, like the past committee members because we (teachers) all came and found a school, so how did it start [sic]? Those things were given by BOG members. (Interview, 28 April 2010)
That information was important in enabling the stakeholders to develop a school vision and mission, which are fundamental in guiding the development a strategic plan. There were also stakeholders whose role in the strategic planning process was rather passive. This could be attributed to the topdown leadership approach that was prevalent in the school, whereby those in leadership positions made all the decisions in the school and left some stakeholders such as parents, students and BOG members who were not part of the Strategic Planning Group as passive observers through most of the strategic planning process. Yet, despite not playing an active role in the development of the strategic plan, they were expected to make some contributions to it. For example, BOG members were all expected to appraise the resultant strategic plan at meetings held to discuss it. Similarly, parents were only informed about the decisions made by the Planning Group because they were expected to finance the proposed projects. The deputy explained: I wont say they were so much involved although it was mentioned to them, but other than the PTA chairman, the rest, it [involvement] was very, very minimal (Interview, 12 May 2010). Indeed, the PTA chair affirmed that it was only him and his vice chairman who were involved in the strategic planning process. They viewed parental involvement as the tail end of the process once the development of the document had been completed: I must say that the parents are not bad. If I call them for a meeting and tell them what we want to do, they will cooperate (Interview, 28 April 2010). One parent simply put it as follows: For us no, we did not have the chance . . . the [PTA] chairman spoke for us (Interview, 28 April 2010). The parents were only seen as financiers of school projects and hence were only informed about school issues when funds were required. Despite this seemingly passive involvement, the parents in the study were accepting of this situation. They were of the view that their opinions were not necessary and as one parent explained they viewed the headteacher as the locus of management who carried the responsibility for planning. The parents role was to ensure that they provided funds for any planned projects. One participant explained that the parents felt offended if they were not informed about any funds needed. One parent confirmed this:
You see, such an issue [not being asked for funds] could have bothered us parents . . . parents would be questioning . . . parents would be saying if its funds you did not have, you should have called us. If they [parents] are told it is the kitchen [that requires funding] they are ready to finance. (Interview, 28 April 2010)
They seemed to accept and believe that correct decisions would always be made on their behalf. Notably, this was despite their level of education as majority of them are literate, with education levels ranging from primary,1 through to tertiary college level. One parent explained: what I know is that the parents here are obedient. If they were to be called for a harambee [fundraising] which is
8
organized in a way that there are guests of honour they would assist the school to grow (Interview, 28 April 2010). The foregoing presents a school community where some of the stakeholders are comfortable being represented, and trust that whatever decisions are made are the best, and are representative of the interests of all. This was particularly conspicuous among parents who left it to their PTA representative to attend to the strategic planning process and relay to them the decisions reached. These decisions centred mainly on funding of the school projects without much information on the strategic planning process per se. This illuminates the importance of sensitizing school stakeholders about strategic planning in schools so that they take it up with understanding and zeal. For instance, parents need to be brought out of the traditional notion that their role is purely that of funding school projects while assuming the teacher knows what is best for the school and so is the sole decision-maker.
10
Another factor that enabled the school to engage in the strategic planning process was the acknowledgement that different stakeholders had certain expertise that could be exploited for the development of the plan. For example, acknowledgement of the BOG Chairs knowledge and experience in strategic planning by the school community enabled him to lead the process in the school. Likewise, the teachers took the lead in doing an analysis of the school situation at the outset of the planning process.
11
It was the foregoing that led to the formation of a strategic planning group, instead of involving all, as the school stakeholders realized that they were running out of time. It wass also because of this that the development of the strategic plan was split among the different categories of stakeholders, as was explained by the deputy headteacher:
One of the problems was that we were different people. We never had enough time to meet together. So now (gesturing to demonstrate distribution), go come up with this idea on this topic, then the other with that idea . . . then we bring them together. (Interview, 12 May 2010)
Approaching the development of the strategic plan in this manner did not provide the stakeholders with the opportunity to share experiences and thereby build capacity for sustained strategy (Davies and Davies, 2010). By working in small groups, consultation among the stakeholders was limited, making it difficult for all of them to reach a consensus on common goals for the school as a whole. In addition, the effect of working individually was evident in the draft strategic plan, in that it lacked coherence due to the different writing styles of the different members of the Planning Group. The language in which the strategic plan was written also limited stakeholder involvement. The stakeholders were expected to write the plan in English yet a number of stakeholders were not proficient in the language. This was further exacerbated by differing levels of literacy among most of the stakeholders. Those with low education levels, such as below form four,2 found strategic planning complex, unlike those with tertiary education qualifications. Hence, a number of the stakeholders became mere observers or passive participants as they did not feel linguistically adequately equipped to make their contributions. The strategic planning group comprised only those who seemed to understand strategic planning and who were also proficient in English. Yet, Keough and Shanahan (2008) argue that the people who envision the future of the school should be creative people with good judgment and intuition and these may not necessarily have been limited to those who formed the schools strategic planning group. In fact, the writers suggest that such planning teams should include a wide variety of participants with different intellectual backgrounds from both inside and outside the school. It would also make sense for the planning process to be carried out in a language that all stakeholders are competent in, as this would contribute to ensuring active participation, for the team to be effective. Finally, the stakeholders disposition towards strategic planning impacted on their collaboration in the process. It either limited or negated their involvement in the strategic planning process. For example, parents appeared indifferent to the process and merely waited to be told what to do, while the teachers who were not in the planning group were highly critical of the process. Such dispositions do not augur well for collaboration in the school as such people are likely to harbour silent resistance, thus constraining their involvement in the strategic planning process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, study findings show that the different stakeholders were involved in the schools strategic planning process in various ways. However, their involvement did not enhance
11
12
collaboration and team work amongst them in order to come up with a strategic plan that was owned and embraced by all the stakeholders. The school stakeholders played disjointed roles in the strategic planning process. Some of them were expected to be part of the planning process; some got involved by virtue of their position in the school; yet others were expected to contribute only to the implementation of the process. This is likely to enhance their commitment to its implementation. Further, there was little awareness in the school on the strategic planning process. The headteacher as the chief executive officer in the school did not lead the process in actuality, due to his inadequate knowledge and skills. The strategic planning process was led by the BOG chair who acquired the knowledge in his professional environment. Thus there is need for capacity building in the schools and education sector as a whole in order for all stakeholders to understand the strategic planning process fully and so be empowered to participate fully. Moreover, the strategic plan in the main lacked student voice yet all plans made in the school should be focused on student outcome. There is a need to have students views in the plan as these plans affect students life, performance and comfort while in the school. Having the students ideas incorporated in the strategic plan suggests that they are involved in planning for and directing their school. Finally, strategic planning should not be the preserve of a school planning group or the school administrators. Instead, shared leadership needs to be encouraged as it would help the stakeholders to be actively involved in the process of strategically planning for their school and not to remain on the fringes of the process, as did the teachers and parents in the study school. Notes
1. The equivalent of ICGSE Year 7. 2. The equivalent of ICGSE Year 11.
References
Bell L (2002) Strategic planning and school management: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? Strategic Planning and Management 4(5): 40724. Biggam J (2008) Succeeding in your Masters Dissertation: A Step by Step Handbook. New York, NY: Open University. Conley D (1992) Strategic planning in Americas schools: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA, April. Creswell JW (2003) Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Davies B (2004) Developing the strategically focused school. School Leadership and Management 24(1): 1127. Davies B (2006) Processes not plans are the key to strategic development. Management in Education 20(11): 1115. Davies B and Davies BJ (2010) The nature and dimensions of strategic leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration 38(1): 121. Davies B and Ellison L (1998) Strategic planning in schools: An oxymoron? School Leadership and Management 18(4): 46173. Davies B and Ellison L (2001) Organizational learning: Building the future of a school. International Journal of Educational Management 15(2): 7885. 12
13
Davies B, Davies BJ and Ellison L (2005) Success and Sustainability: Developing the Strategically Focused School. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Eacott S (2008) Strategy in educational leadership: In search of unity. Journal of Educational Administration 46(3): 35375. Glanz J (2010) Justice and caring: Power, politics and ethics in strategic leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration 38(1): 6686. Kaufman R and Herman J (1991) Strategic planning for a better society. Educational Leadership 48(7): 411. Keough SM and Shanahan KJ (2008) Scenario planning: Toward a more complete model for practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10(2): 16678. Ministry of Education, Human Resource Development (Kenya) (1999) School Management Guide. Nairobi: Jomo Kenyatta Foundation. Ministry of Education (2005) Strategic Plan 20062011. Nairobi: Government printers. Pevzner M (2006) A case study of strategic planning at Kent State University. University Administration Support Program. URL: www.irex.org/programs (accessed 21 April 2010). Quong T and Walker A (2010) Seven principles of strategic leadership. International Studies in Educational Administration 38(1): 2234. Retallick J (2009) Successful schools: What can we learn from them? In: Qureshi R and Shamim F (eds) Schools and Schooling Practices in Pakistan: Lessons for Policy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stoll L and Fink D (1996) Changing our Schools: Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press. UNESCO (2000) The Dakar Framework for Action: Education for All: Meeting our Collective Commitments. Adapted by the World Education Forum, Dakar, Senegal, 2628 April. Xaba M (2006) The difficulties of school development planning. South African Journal of Education 26(1): 1526. Young DY (2009) Strategic planning in Manitoba. A paper prepared for POLS 7370, Theory and Practice of Public Administration, University of Manitoba.
Author biographies Flora Mbugua is a long-serving high school teacher with school leadership experience of over ten years. She is also a part-time lecturer at Mt Kenya University. Her research interests include school improvement and leadership. She holds a Masters of Education degree (MEd) in Leadership and Management from Aga Khan University. Jane F. A. Rarieya is a Professor and African Research Fellow at the Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa. She received her EdD in Gender and Educational Management from Keele University. Her research interest is in school leadership and gender.
13