'School Administrators' and Stakeholders' Attitudes Toward, and Perspectives On, School Improvement Planning
'School Administrators' and Stakeholders' Attitudes Toward, and Perspectives On, School Improvement Planning
'School Administrators' and Stakeholders' Attitudes Toward, and Perspectives On, School Improvement Planning
CANUTE S. THOMPSON
The University of the West Indies
ABSTRACT
This study explores the attitudes and perspectives of school administrators and other
stakeholders on the school improvement planning process. A convenience sampling technique was
employed with a sample of 15 schools and 91 respondents. The findings of the study indicated
four principal factors, involvement, accountability, plan implementation and efficacy, defined the
perspectives of the respondents. These factors were also responsible for 68.83% of the variation
in the data. The factor ‘involvement’ accounted for 47.82% of the variation and suggests that the
most critical issue affecting how the school improvement planning process is seen is the degree of
stakeholder involvement.
INTRODUCTION
Huber and Conway (2015) indicated that under the “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) Act
of 2001, schools which had been assessed as not making adequate progress, particularly in relation
to student achievement, were required to submit a school improvement plan (SIP) to the relevant
State body. Huber and Conway cited White (2009) who also explained that SIPs were designed to
close achievement gaps and raise levels of student achievement.
Huber and Conway (2015) called people’s attention to the fact that school improvement
efforts have been documented since the 1970s, but they lamented that despite over four decades
of discussion and documentation there is still no clear agreement on exactly how to carry out
the improvement efforts. They found the absence of a clear blue print for school improvement
puzzling based on their review of the literature which shows that there are a number of key areas
in which school improvement efforts must focus. These key areas include: frequent monitoring of
student data, identification of persons responsible for implementation of each strategy, leadership
strategies, and an evaluation of a school’s readiness to change, among others (Beach & Lindahl,
2004).
The seeming puzzlement of how to act on school improvement is not only confined to the
United States of America. Many countries around the world, including the United Kingdom, and
those in the Caribbean, have been struggling with this issue. In the United Kingdom, the issue
of school improvement planning is a termly priority and the importance of the contribution of
all stakeholders is emphasized (Arnold, 2017). Jamaica and other Caribbean countries have been
grappling with poor school performance for decades (Parry, 2004; Thwaites, 2015). This study
examines the situation in Jamaica.
Following the re-organization of the Ministry of Education in the early 2000’s, the National
Education Inspectorate (NEI) was established and since 2010 it has conducted inspection of schools.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research seeks to answer four questions, as follows:
(1) How extensively are staff members in school and other stakeholders involved in the
planning process?
(2) What are the factors associated with effective school improvement planning?
(3) How are the associated factors related to each other?
(4) Is there a relationship between perspectives of staff regarding the planning process
and institution type (publicly or privately owned)?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining School Improvement Planning
School improvement planning is a strategic planning process by which members of the
school community conduct a thorough evaluation of their school’s educational programme and
performance in the previous school years and develop a written plan that establishes the starting
point for ongoing evaluation of efforts to achieve improvements in student outcomes in succeeding
years. In essence, a school improvement plan is a road map that sets out the changes a school
needs to make to improve the level of student achievement.
Beach and Lindahl (2004) lamented the fact that with the removal of the planning
from the training of principals and the repeated failures of planning initiatives, the importance
of planning as a focal process in schools was lost traction. Many plans which required extensive
effort to be developed are often left to gather dust; thus stakeholders are often led to doubt the
value of the exercise. But the importance of planning as a part of the principal’s work cannot be
overemphasized as Beach and Lindahl (2000) have argued.
Judah and Paul (2014) argued that the process of (strategic) planning offers educational
institutions the opportunity to identify how they would commit resources over the long term to
support the accomplishment of the mission of the school. They built on this foundational
observation by arguing that the focus of educational planning at the institutional level is the
enrichment of learner experience and improvement in learner outcomes. Judah and Paul suggested
that more broadly the institutional strategic planning process may be characterized as a change
process which
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Four major works form the theoretical framework of this study. Thompson (2015)
advanced the notion of Proposition CJC. Proposition CJC refers to what Thompson found to be the
top three factors that explain the variation in the data in a study on teachers’ expectations of the
leadership behaviours of principals. CJC refer to capacity, justice, and care, and specifically the
expectation of teachers that their principals would take account of their capacities to contribute
meaningfully to the efforts of the school as it seeks to implement the plans and programmes
designed to produce improvements in student performance and other quality of outputs of the
school. The J in Proposition CJC refers to justice and points to the notion that exclusion of
teachers from participation in both decision-making concerning the school plans and programmes
is an act of injustice. The second C refers to care suggesting that caring leadership involves a
commitment to inclusive decision- making and this act of caring / inclusion is most vividly
expressed in listening. Thus, Proposition CJC’s contribution to this theoretical framework is to be
understood as demarcating that a certain approach to leadership is necessary in order for a school
to successfully implement any course of school-wide action. This is particularly true for a critical
undertaking such as a School Improvement Plan, which requires inclusivity as Lockheed, Harris,
and Jayasundera (2010) posited.
The second theoretical framework of this study is found in the work of Hutton and
Johnson (2017) who found that the personal philosophy of the school principal informed by a
passion for excellence and a belief in the capacity of others, is critical to the success of the school.
The work of Hutton and Johnson consisted of stories told by nineteen principals about their
experiences in transforming their schools. The stories showed that among the key elements of the
transforming experiences were attitudes and approaches such as the belief that students can excel,
the reliance on data to drive decisions, a collective / inclusive approach to decision-making and
holding staff strictly accountable for results.
1. Capacity 3. Distributivity
Improvement
▼ ▼
Planning
Effective
School
▼ ▼
2. Inclusivity 4. Accountability
Figure 1. The acronym CAID for Capacity, Accountability, Inclusivity, and Distributive
leadership.
Sample
A convenience sampling technique was used to produce the sample for this study.
Given that over 80% of schools in Jamaica have been involved in designing and implementing
SIPs just about any school chosen would have had the level of exposure that would lead to school
administrators and other members of staff developing a positive or negative outlook towards SIPs.
The convenience sampling technique was used based on factors related to cost and ease
of access. The researcher did not have funds available to mount an operation across the entire
country but had ease of access to a number of schools with close proximity to each team member’s
operating base and it was therefore convenient to engage those schools. Convenience sampling is
a specific type of non-probability sampling method that relies on data collection from population
members who are conveniently available to participate in the study. According to Creswell (2013),
convenience sampling really means using what is available given what is relevant. A total of
fifteen schools participated in the research covering both public and private schools at the Primary
and Secondary levels, inclusive of schools for students with special needs. A total of ninety-one
(91) school administrators and members of staff participated in the survey.
RESULTS
Answer to Question # 1: Extent of Involvement of Staff and other Stakeholders in the
Planning Process
The data show that over one quarter (26.4%) of the respondents disagreed, strongly
disagreed or were undecided about whether staff members participated in the school improvement
planning process, whereas 73.6% either agreed or strongly agreed as shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Perceptions on Most Members of Staff Participated in the School Improvement Planning Process
Data Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Disagree 4 4.4 4.6 4.6
Disagree 10 11.0 11.5 16.1
Undecided 9 9.9 10.3 26.4
Valid
Agree 40 44.0 46.0 72.4
Strongly Agree 24 26.4 27.6 100.0
Total 87 95.6 100.0
Missing System 4 4.4
Total 91 100.0
Table 2
Perceptions on Students are invited to participate in the planning activities
Frequency Per- Valid Percent Cumulative Per-
cent cent
Strongly Dis-
6 6.6 6.7 6.7
agree
Disagree 17 18.7 18.9 25.6
Undecided 25 27.5 27.8 53.3
Valid
Agree 33 36.3 36.7 90.0
Strongly
9 9.9 10.0 100.0
Agree
Total 90 98.9 100.0
Missing System 1 1.1
Total 91 100.0
Table 5
Relationship between Perspectives and Institution Type
The argument about the importance of collaboration is reinforced by the second major
finding of this study, namely the top four factors which explain the variation in the data. These are
involvement, accountability, plan implementation, and efficacy, which account for 68.83% of the
variation. Involvement accounts for 47.82%, which suggests that the most critical issue that defines
how stakeholders view the school improvement planning process is the degree of their
involvement.
The overwhelming importance of involvement, as a key element of school improvement
planning, is supported by Litman (2013) who listed seven principles of effective planning
highlights inclusivity, and Judah and Paul (2014) who contended that the breadth of stakeholder
involvement in the information gathering increased the probability of overall plan embracement.
Beach and Lindahl (2004) suggested that the art of inclusive planning is not a natural skill which
school administrators possess, and they lamented the fact that training in planning is not
sufficiently emphasized in the preparation of school principals.
CONCLUSION
School improvement planning is a practice that has been discussed and documented for
over four decades. Despite the four decades-long practice, supported by the passing of legislation
(as in the case of “No Child Left Behind”) to mandate school improvement planning, the training
of school leaders in school improvement planning, and the provision of resources to support the
process, schools in many jurisdictions are still not experiencing desired levels of improvements.
It is inarguable as Judah and Paul (2014), Brand and Gaffikin (2007), Phelps and Addonizio
(2006), and Barber (1984) have found that stakeholder involvement is critical to the realization of
improvement in student achievement. Also central to improvement is student achievement and the
school’s performance more broadly, which is predicated on planning, is the issue of accountability
as Thompson (2017), and Phelps and Addonizio (2006) have posited.
The key finding of this study is that the single most critical variable in effective planning,
planning which produces the desired outcomes, is the involvement of stakeholders. The factor
involvement accounted for 47.82% of the variation in the data on which this study is based.
The dominance of this variable suggests that the most critical issue affecting how the school
improvement planning process is seen is the degree of stakeholder involvement.
The theoretical model espoused by this study identifies four elements, each of which is in
some way connected to the concept and practice of involvement. The four elements are Capacity,
Accountability, Inclusivity, and Distributivity. The element ‘capacity’ suggests that planners take
account of and give credence to the capacity of stakeholders to make a difference. This conclusion
is supported by Thompson (2015). The element accountability means that those stakeholders who
commit to be involved in the planning process must be held accountable (Thompson, 2017; Phelps
and Addonizio, 2006). This is further supported by the findings of this study which show that
accountability is the second of the top three factors which explain the variation in the data.
REFERENCES
Allison, M., & Kaye, J. (2005). Strategic planning for nonprofit organizations (2nd ed.). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Arnold, M. (2017). Effective school improvement plans. One Education. Retrieved from
https://www.oneeducation.co.uk/one-editorial/school-improvement/effective-school-
improvement-plans/
Baldacchino, G., & Farrugia, C. J. (2002). Educational planning in small states: Concepts and
experiences. Commonwealth Secretariat.
Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory democracy for a new age. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Beach, R. H., & Lindahl, R. A. (2000). New standards for the preparation of school administrators:
What conceptualization of educational planning do they portray? Planning and Changing,
31(1 & 2), 35–52.
Beach, R. H., & Lindahl, R. A. (2004). Identifying the knowledge base for school improvement
Planning and Changing, 35(1 & 2), 2–32.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Brand, R., & Gaffikin, F. (2007). Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Planning
Theory, 6(3), 282–313.
Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning (2017). School improvement planning process.
Jamaica: Author.
Caputo, A., & Rastelli, V. (2014). School improvement plans and student achievement: Preliminary
evidence from the quality and merit project in Italy. Improving Schools, 17(1), 72–98.
Carnoy, M., & Rothstein, R. (2013). What do international tests really show about U.S. Student
performance? Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuthill, M. (2002). Exploratory research: Citizen participation, local government, and sustainable
development in Australia. Sustainable Development, 10, 79–89. doi: 10.1002/sd.185
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., & Andree, A. (2010). How high-achieving countries develop
great teachers. San Jose, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Forde, G. (2006). Educational planning in the Eastern Caribbean: A strategic approach. Education
Media International, 25(3), 186–191.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2004). Reflect yourself. HR Magazine, 49(9), 151–154.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in
Education, 22(1), 31.
Appendix
Survey Questionnaire
SA A U D SD
(1) You are involved in the school improvement planning
activities
(2) In your opinion school improvement planning is vital to the
school’s performance
(3) The school improvement planning process is carefully and
thoughtfully structured
(4) Most members of staff participate in the school improve-
ment planning process
(5) The performance of most students has improved since the
school began to undertake school improvement planning
(6) The overall performance of the school has improved
since the school began to undertake school improvement
planning
(7) Suggestions made by staff members about the areas for
improvement are taken into account in deciding on the
priorities of the school
(8) Students are invited to participate in the planning activities
(a) Yes
(b) No
(a) 20 – 30 [ ]
(b) 31 – 40 [ ]
(c) 41 – 50 [ ]
(d) 51 – 60 [ ]
(e) 60+ []
5 years or less ]
(a) [
(b) 6 – 10 years [ ]
(d) 16 – 20 years [ ]
(b) 6 – 10 years [ ]
(c) 11 – 15 years [ ]
(d) 16 – 20 years [ ]
(a) Male [ ]
(b) Female [ ]
(a) Non-management [ ]
Acknowledgements
The author places on record, profound appreciation to the graduate students in the Class
of 2018 in the Master of Education in Planning and Policy, for their assistance with this research.
The members of the class provided invaluable support in liaising with the schools and distributing
and collecting the survey instruments. My thanks are also extended to the leadership of the
schools which facilitated access and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Information which
gave permission to enter the schools and to Mrs. Lamoine Samuels-Lee, Research Assistant, who
offered invaluable insight and advice in the analysis of the data.