Collaborative strategic planning

Participants’ understanding of strategic planning

The nature of strategic planning that prevailed in the study school can largely be attributed to the stakeholders’ understanding of the concept of strategic planning. For example, it was apparent that some of the stakeholders understood strategic planning as it is widely understood elsewhere, as seen in the literature (Davies et al., 2001; Bell, 2002; Pevzner, 2006; Eacott, 2008). This was particularly the case among those who were actively involved in strategic planning in the school such as the teachers and school leaders. They viewed strategic planning as a directional ongoing process of charting the way forward for the future of the institution in light of its present state leading to the attainment of a school’s goals within a specific period of time. However, this was not the case with the parents and those teachers who were not part of the Strategic Planning Group. It was on this basis that the teachers who were not part of the Strategic Planning Group declined to take part 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 institution’s 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 one’s understanding too.

Strategic planning in action

This section examines the strategic planning process in the school, drawing out the possibilities and tensions of engaging in such an activity in this context.

The development of the strategic plan in the school appeared to be the preserve of a few stakeholders who were referred to as the Strategic Planning Group and whose chief task was to compile a strategic plan document. The group comprised six members drawn from the school leadership, teachers and the Board of Governors. It was evident that the school stakeholders viewed the planning as complex and therefore it was imperative that those who were members of the Strategic Planning Group should be those considered the best for the set task. The best in this instance referred to those who understood the strategic planning process. As one of the study participants explained: ‘the BOG decided to give us their best three. Then again the teachers also selected the principal, the deputy, and the dean – so also their best three’ (Interview, 28 April 2010).

In addition, the approach to planning by the stakeholders was rather segmented. The Planning Group broke down sections of the plan and allocated these to those deemed as experts in those areas to draw up plans for them. For example, the headteacher planned the budget and financial matters, the deputy planned issues related to school discipline, subject teachers planned for their individual subjects, while students identified the values they would wish to uphold in the school. Further, the focus of these subgroups was to write the plan. There did not seem to be discussions held by the school stakeholders about the identified strategic targets. Yet, Davis (2004) and Glanz (2010) identify strategic conversations as a necessary precursor to strategic planning. As one of the study participants explained: ‘we decided to divide those chapters so people were given specific topics to write on, then we brought those [drafts] together’ (Interview, 28 April 2010).

Hence, the different stakeholder groups did not bother with issues beyond the section allocated to them. The focus seemed to be the development of a formal document rather than achievement of goals with a view to improving the quality of education offered in the school.

Thus, besides the members of the SPG, the rest of the stakeholders were not aware of the overall direction in the school’s strategic plan. This seemingly disjointed approach to planning raised a number of issues. For example, an analysis of the plan showed that the set objectives were very unrealistic and not linked to the overall goal of the plan. There seemed to be no unity of purpose among the stakeholders who prepared the strategic plan. Also, some of the objectives were not achievable as the school was not in a financial position to enable them happen. For example, teachers of four different subject areas, Agriculture, Chemistry, Biology and Guidance and Counselling, indicated that they should have specialized rooms built and equipped for their specific subjects. Since collaboration among the stakeholders in developing the plan was lacking, the final plan was not readily accepted by them. As one member of the Planning Group pointed out:

… When it was read, some of them [other stakeholders] were really criticizing [sic] maybe because they did not understand … but instead of them appreciating what had been done, some of them were criticizing very small issues … Those involved in the actual preparation and writing of the document felt really demoralized by the lack of appreciation and too much unjustifiable criticism from those members judging them. (Interview, 12 May 2010)

Nature of stakeholder involvement

The study also established that the nature of stakeholders’ involvement depended on the role they played in the strategic planning process.

The headteacher played the leadership role by virtue of his position in the school because, although new to the strategic process and not well versed in it, he was expected to lead the process. Hence, it was he who disseminated the Ministry’s directive on strategic planning to the stakeholders, as was explained by one of the participants: ‘the idea was sold to the teachers by the principal…I am certain there was a circular requesting every school to come up with a strategic plan’ (Teacher interview, 28 April 2010).

However, without the technical know-how of the strategic planning process, the headteacher was compelled to share leadership of the process with the BOG chair who had expertise in the strategic planning process. The BOG chair took the initiative to share his knowledge of strategic planning with the headteacher, deputy headteacher and the other members of the BOG, upon realizing that most of them did not know what it was and what was required of them.

In addition to those who were considered leaders, there were some stakeholders who were also viewed as pivotal to the process due to their knowledge expertise in certain areas that were deemed as essential for the success of developing the plan. This group included teachers, students and members of the BOG. The teachers, for example, were viewed as experts in their teaching subjects. Thus it is they who decided what were going to be the set tasks and how they were to be achieved, as explained by a participant: ‘every department was supposed to come up with what they wanted their department to be, set targets and plan how they were to be achieved … Every teacher was expected to deal with their own subject’ (Teacher interview, 28 April 2010).

However, as stated earlier, this approach led to an inability to achieve the targets set by the teachers as these objectives did not correspond with the financial capacity of the school. Indeed, Pevzner (2006: 16) affirms that ‘working together … helps define priorities and encourages immediate and continuous need for dialogue among stakeholders to achieve collective excellence’.

The students in turn contributed to the process by giving their views about some of the values necessary for enabling the success of the planning and implementation of the strategic plan. As one participant explained:

… the other stakeholders like the students, we also gave them the [sic] assignment. We told them that we were writing a strategic plan and we needed them to come up with core values. In fact, what we have, came from the students themselves. (Interview, 12 May 2010)

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)

There were also stakeholders whose role in the strategic planning process was rather passive. This could be attributed to the top–down 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 won’t 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 it’s 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)

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.

Factors facilitating stakeholders’ involvement

Several factors seemed to facilitate stakeholder involvement.The study established that communication was important in enhancing stakeholders’ involvement in strategic planning. At the onset of the planning process, communication was intense but this eventually petered out as the process developed so that it was finally limited to members of the Strategic Planning Group. Communication was mainly done through teacher or BOG meetings. At these meetings, issues pertaining to strategic planning were discussed. Questions on how the stakeholders were to go about the strategic planning process were raised. These meetings were attended by majority of the stakeholders during the early stages of the strategic planning process and, later on, by the strategic planning group only.

During one such teacher meeting, the different teachers set targets for their subjects and later submitted that information to the planning group. In their meeting, the BOG members also got information on the strategic planning process from the chair. Students were informed about the strategic plan and the role that they were expected to play. The students then held their own meetings in which they came up with values for the school. Parents too were informed about the strategic plan and they accepted their role of financing the strategic plan. These findings indicate that when stakeholders are able to discuss ideas they all become aware of the existing situation in the school. Such communication enhances the development of a conducive environment for stakeholders to collaboratively deliberate on how to improve the future of the school (Pevzner, 2006). However, such communication is only effective if it is timely and utilized to disseminate correct information and instructions to all stakeholders.

In Kenya’s education sector, the spirit of ‘harambee’ has contributed enormously to the development of education. ‘Harambee’ is a Swahili word denoting ‘pulling together’ and in the Kenyan context this spirit was largely used in the period before 2003 to raise funds to put up infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. Hence, today, the harambee legacy can still be felt in most schools. All stakeholders often contribute to the development of the school. In the study school, the different stakeholders saw it as their duty to play the role they were assigned. This was further enhanced by the cordial relationship that seemed to exist among the stakeholders and a general desire to contribute to the success of the school, no doubt attributable to the sense of ownership that the different stakeholders felt about the school. For example, in describing the commitment of parents to the school, the PTA Chair explained: ‘I must say the parents are not bad, So long as I call them.… We all agree that we need to uplift the standard of our school’ (Interview, 28 April 2010).

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 Chair's 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.

Factors inhibiting stakeholders’ involvement

Just as the foregoing factors enabled stakeholder involvement, there were factors that inhibited their full engagement in the strategic planning process.

The first of these factors was the general goal of the strategic planning process in the school. As one teacher explained, the stakeholders’ main goal was to produce a strategic plan document with a ‘specific number of chapters as directed by the District Education Officer’s circular’ (Interview, 12 May 2010). The notion that the strategic plan was supposed to help the school plan its long-term development in the light of its vision (Bell, 2002; Quong and Walker, 2010) was not understood by all the stakeholders. This no doubt was due to the fact that the school’s engagement in the process was the result of a ministerial directive and did not emanate from within the school. Retallick (2009) notes that a decentralized system of education and a high degree of autonomy results in successful schools. This suggests that policy initiated by the school-based management is likely to be better accepted and implemented as opposed to external directives and bureaucracy, which rarely result in the intended good.

Further, the lack of adequate knowledge on the concept and process of strategic planning impeded both the stakeholders’ involvement and the planning process itself. Strategic planning was a new concept and practice for most of the stakeholders. The Ministry of Education had merely given instructions to be carried out without equipping the schools with the prerequisite knowledge and skills on how to go about the process. As one of the participants stated: ‘initially it was a big challenge. It was a new idea and nobody knew how it was to be written’ (Interview, 12 May 2010). Hence, for most of the stakeholders, this knowledge and practice was acquired on the job. Consequently, some of them lacked confidence in what they were doing. To ensure that they came up with the required document, the school leaders borrowed ideas on strategic planning from other schools that had already developed their plans.

No doubt the inadequate preparation of school leaders on strategic planning hampered efficient implementation of the particular policy guideline, especially its preparation and launch. This suggests that the necessary modalities that can ensure the successful implementation of a policy directive need to be established first. Indeed, Davies and Ellison (1998) note that when schools are faced with a series of new initiatives from central or local government, they react and adjust to them as they come along without seeing the pattern or purpose of what is happening, as was the case in the study school. Thus, unless there is some formal training on what needs to be done, schools do not gain from an otherwise beneficial programme. In this case, it follows that, unless schools are trained and understand the strategic process fully, many schools will have just the strategic plan document but may not be in a position to gain from it.

Lack of an understanding by the stakeholders on the intended vision resulted in too much time being taken to reach a consensus and in some cases these discussions were unfruitful. For example, the PTA Chair explained:

We would sit for two hours or so … We discuss this and the other, and in the end you [sic] have done nothing; just discussions. Then it goes [sic] to four hours and you have not got anywhere … You have to sit another time and do the job once again. (Interview, 28 April 2010)

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 school’s 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.