educational management administration & leadership-2013-mbugua-1741143213499258

http://ema.sagepub.com/Administration & Leadership

Educational Management

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/08/1741143213499258The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1741143213499258

published online 14 October 2013Educational Management Administration & LeadershipFlora Mbugua and Jane F. A. Rarieya

Collaborative strategic planning: myth or reality?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society

can be found at:Educational Management Administration & LeadershipAdditional services and information for

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Oct 14, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Chamil Silva on October 30, 2013ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ema.sagepub.com/

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/08/1741143213499258

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.belmas.org.uk/

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/08/1741143213499258.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml















Article

Collaborative strategicplanning: myth or reality?

Flora Mbugua and Jane F. A. Rarieya

AbstractThe concept and practice of strategic planning, while entrenched in educational institutions in theWest, is just catching on in Kenya. While literature emphasizes the importance of collaborativestrategic planning, it does not indicate the challenges presented by collaboratively engaging instrategic planning. This article reports on findings of a study of how one Kenyan secondary schoolengaged in strategic planning. The study aimed to find out how the various stakeholders in theschool are involved in strategic planning. The study adopted a qualitative case study approach. Datawere 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 theprocess disjointedly. In addition, lack of knowledge about what strategic planning constitutes ren-dered some of the stakeholders passive participants. Findings illustrate that strategic planning is aconcept and process that is challenging for school stakeholders and hence, for contexts similar tothe one in which the study took place, there is need for sensitization and training of school stake-holders on the strategic planning process in order to build capacity for schools to reap benefitsfrom it.

KeywordsStrategic 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 there-

fore 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: [email protected]

Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership1–13ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1741143213499258emal.sagepub.com

1

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

http://emal.sagepub.com

Although schools in various parts of the world, especially in the West, began adopting stra-

tegic 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 educa-

tional institutions. However, this is a process that has largely been driven by the Ministry of Edu-

cation 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 short-

term 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 accent-

uate 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 school’s strategic

planning process. More specifically, it sought to establish who was involved in the process and

how they were involved.

School strategic planning in Kenya

The Ministry of Education’s involvement in strategic planning and subsequent directive to schools

to engage in the same stems from Kenya being a signatory to the 2000 Dakar Declaration on Edu-

cation for All (EFA). UNESCO (2000: 17) states that:

Education for All is a basic human right at the heart of development which must be a national and inter-

national priority. It requires a strong and sustained political commitment, enhanced financial alloca-

tions and the participation of all EFA partners in the processes of policy design, strategic planning

and the implementation of programmes.

Hence, following Kenya’s adoption of free primary education for all in 2003, the Ministry

launched its strategic plan for 2006–2011 (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 Ministry’s 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 insti-

tutions. At the launch of the Ministry’s strategic plan, every district was expected to develop its

2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership

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 chal-

lenges 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 num-

ber 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

author’s tenure as a deputy headteacher in a secondary school, her school failed to develop a stra-

tegic plan because they were not aware of the strategic planning process. Moreover, our interac-

tions 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 con-

cerns 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.

Mbugua et al.: Collaborative strategic planning 3

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 under-

standing of that case within the school’s 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 Gov-

ernors (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 stra-

tegic 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. There-

fore, 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 sum-

mary 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 proposi-

tions and draw conclusions (Creswell, 2003).

Discussion of findings

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 par-

ticularly 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


4

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 direc-

tional, 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 stake-

holders defined strategic planning as an ongoing process of identifying and programming the insti-

tution’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 accomplish-

ment 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 acti-

vities . . . 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 par-

ticular 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.


5

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 stake-

holders 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 plan-

ning 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, teach-

ers 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)

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.

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 inter-

view, 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 stra-

tegic planning process. The BOG chair took the initiative to share his knowledge of strategic plan-

ning 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)

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 partici-

pant 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 mis-

sion, 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 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 stake-

holders 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 contri-

butions 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] chair-

man 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)

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 stake-

holders 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 communi-

cation 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. Communica-

tion 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 strate-

gic 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 meet-

ings in which they came up with values for the school. Parents too were informed about the stra-

tegic 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 stake-

holders 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 devel-

opment 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 differ-

ent 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 con-

tribute 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).


9

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 under-

stood 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. Retal-

lick (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. Conse-

quently, 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 effi-

cient 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 hap-

pening, 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:


10

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)

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 stake-

holders, 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 stake-

holders 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 pro-

ficient 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 plan-

ning complex, unlike those with tertiary education qualifications. Hence, a number of the stake-

holders 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 back-

grounds 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 disposi-

tions 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

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 headtea-

cher 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 stra-

tegic 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? Stra-

tegic Planning and Management 4(5): 407–24.

Biggam J (2008) Succeeding in your Masters Dissertation: A Step by Step Handbook. New York, NY: Open

University.

Conley D (1992) Strategic planning in America’s 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):

11–27.

Davies B (2006) Processes not plans are the key to strategic development. Management in Education 20(11):

11–15.

Davies B and Davies BJ (2010) The nature and dimensions of strategic leadership. International Studies in

Educational Administration 38(1): 1–21.

Davies B and Ellison L (1998) Strategic planning in schools: An oxymoron? School Leadership and Manage-

ment 18(4): 461–73.

Davies B and Ellison L (2001) Organizational learning: Building the future of a school. International Journal

of Educational Management 15(2): 78–85.


12

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): 353–75.

Glanz J (2010) Justice and caring: Power, politics and ethics in strategic leadership. International Studies in

Educational Administration 38(1): 66–86.

Kaufman R and Herman J (1991) Strategic planning for a better society. Educational Leadership 48(7): 4–11.

Keough SM and Shanahan KJ (2008) Scenario planning: Toward a more complete model for practice.

Advances in Developing Human Resources 10(2): 166–78.

Ministry of Education, Human Resource Development (Kenya) (1999) School Management Guide. Nairobi:

Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.

Ministry of Education (2005) Strategic Plan 2006–2011. Nairobi: Government printers.

Pevzner M (2006) A case study of strategic planning at Kent State University. University Administration Sup-

port 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): 22–34.

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, 26–28 April.

Xaba M (2006) The difficulties of school development planning. South African Journal of Education 26(1):

15–26.

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

www.irex.org/programs