Introduction
Never undersestimate the ability of a small, dedicated group of people to change the world; indeed, it's the only thin that ever has chnaged the world.
~ Margaret Meade
In this era of high-stakes standardized testing, educational leaders must possess many skills in order to effectively operate a high quality educational organization that encounters change daily. Administrators need skills and knowledge in the areas of curriculum, physical plant management, budget, finance, personnel management, legal issues, and daily decision making concerning many issues if they are to survive and help their schools reach the noble mission of educating children to grow and function together in a global society as productive citizens (Daresh, 2002). The construct of a global society implies more complexity; this rapid change that is occurring requires that educational leaders become more sophisticated in creating the best possible learning environment for our youth (Fullan, 2001). In Leading in a Culture of Change , Michael Fullan (2001) proposes a framework for addressing the complexities that are unpredictable, nonlinear, and ever increasing in pace. In order to address these issues, leaders must possess a moral purpose, understand change, place importance on relationships, build knowledge, and make coherence of important trends; these five constructs work interdependently and provide a checks and balances system for leaders (Fullan, 2001). Bolman and Deal (2003) give leaders of organizations another important tool for helping them deal with the daily issues that arise; they propose an examination of the frames that are inherent in the life of organizations. This helps leaders to better understand how to adjust their decision making styles to meet the frame or frames present in the issues that must be addressed. Leaders must be knowledgeable and flexible. The frames that Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal discuss in Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership include examining the structure, human resource, political, and symbolic frames that are inherent in any organization. Understanding the importance of these frames and how to think systemically will aid leaders in understanding the intended, as well as unintended, consequences of their actions and decisions.
If educational leaders are to become agents of change to help our schools meet the needs of an ever increasingly demanding society, they must begin to better understand the process of planning for change. This planning must be strategic in nature in order to achieve measureable improvement. According to the Greenwood Dictionary of Education (2003, p. 338), strategic planning is defined as, “a process that people engage in to define an achievable and sustainable future for their institution or organization.” While this definition appears simple, there are a variety of ways that educational planning can be approached. Edie L. Holcomb (2001) provides multiple resources for the leader, no matter what capacity, that enable one to effortlessly move between models and strategies that best fit the questions that are encompassed in changing educational organizations. Holcomb (2001) provides five questions to help the leader have a greater affect on change: 1.) Where are we now, 2.) Where do we want to go, 3.) How will we get there, 4.) How will we know we are (getting) there, and 5.) How will we sustain focus and momentum? Within these five domains of questions, Holcomb embeds various strategies that provide a toolbox for the leader to access and use effortlessly as they become change agents for their organization. These strategies will be applied in each of Holcomb's five areas after a brief review of prevailing models for meaningful improvement.
In order to fully grasp the concepts and available resources involved with educational change, it is necessary for leaders to research various education and business planning models. These models involve stages of meaningful change that help to improve practice and help our children achieve their dreams, hopes, aspirations, and ambitions to the best of their abilities; these models aid organizations in achieving their missions. This paper provides a sampling of online, hard copy resources, and strategies that will enable instructional leaders to become more proficient in leading high quality educational organizations towards meaningful measureable improvement and resolve the struggles they may face during the process. Each section of the planning process will reflect current literature on change and improvement as well as provide current research based strategies and online resources to aid in the strategic planning process.
Models
There are many models from both the world of education and business that can aid educational leaders as they seek to define and structure their organizational visions to meet society's emerging needs. One of the first suggestions comes in the form of reframing the way one thinks concerning the planning for improvement process; this construct should be used as a verb rather than a noun. Organizations that plan for improvement are continuously undergoing transformation as needs emerge while keeping a focus on the vision of the organization.
Kaufman, Herman, and Watters (2002) divide strategic planning into three stages which are scoping, planning, and implementing the plan and continually improving. Each of these stages is divided into smaller segments.
Scoping is divided into three steps. These include defining the current mission, identifying and selecting needs, and deriving the mission objective. Defining the current mission involves looking to the future and defining that mission based on an ideal vision. The organization's mission should contain clear objectives that are measurable and focus on results. Without a vision-oriented mission, the strategic plan would not produce future oriented results. Assessing needs is divided this into nine steps. These include deciding to use data to assess needs, identifying the level of the needs assessment, identifying partners, getting the partners to participate, accepting the needs assessment frame of reference, collecting data, linking the needs into an assessment matrix, prioritizing the needs, and agreeing upon needs to be selected for inclusion in the strategic plan. The final phase in scoping is deriving the mission objective; it states four things which include who or what will demonstrate the performance, the performance to be demonstrated, the conditions under which the performance will be observed, and the criteria used to determine success.
The second stage of the Kaufman, Herman, and Watters strategic planning process is planning. There are three steps: 1.) identifying SWOTs, 2.) deriving long and short-term missions, and 3.) deriving a strategic plan. Identifying SWOTs involves defining the organization's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The next step in the planning stage is deriving short and long-term missions. Kaufman, Herman, and Watters (2002) wrote , each of these long and short-term missions should be (a) based upon the now shared ideal vision, needs, and existing mission, and (b) precisely identify where the educational organization is headed, and how everyone will know when (and if) they have arrived. Because measurable criteria are used, progress toward each of the missions and ideal may be plotted and reported toward continuous improvement. Appropriate responses, resources, and en route changes may be related. Deriving a strategic plan is the last step and involves an organization knowing where it wants to go and justifying why it wants to get there; the organization can then begin plotting the objectives required to get there.
The final stage in the Kaufman, Herman, and Watters strategic planning model is implementation and continuous improvement. These are broken down into deriving tactical and operational plans, implementation, continuous improvement/formative evaluation, and determining effectiveness ( Lorenzen, 2004). To gain critical success Kaufman, Herman, and Waters (1996) suggest shifting your paradigm to be larger and more inclusive by focusing on the mega level and thinking globally as you act, differentiating between the means and the ends, linking all levels of results, using an ideal vision as the underlying basis for planning, preparing mission objectives, and defining “need” as a gap in results.
Bryson (1995) offers a ten step strategic plan for organizational improvement: 1.) Initiate and agree upon a strategic planning process; 2.) Identify organizational mandates; 3.) Clarify organizational mission and values;4.) Assess the organization's external and internal environments to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; 5.) Identify the strategic issues facing the organization; 6.) Formulate strategies to manage these issues; 7.) Review and adopt the strategic plan or plans; 8.) Establish an effective organizational vision; 9.) Develop an effective implementation process; and 10.) Reassess strategies and the strategic planning process.
Wood's model involves five stages and focuses primarily on staff development, though many educational organizations have used this approach for improvement. The first stage is readiness and involves working in small groups to identify concerns, issues, and current practices. The second stage is planning; the shareholders distinguish between goals, desired practices, and plan training activities. The next phase involves training all shareholders while allowing them to share, add, and critique the plan. Implementing the plan is the fourth phase and requires continuous support and resources for success. The final stage involves maintaining the plan for improvement; all shareholders should provide input to overcome obstacles and celebrate success.
Miles, Huberman, and Fullan provide a planning model that involves initiation, implementation, and institutionalization. This plan appears to be simple due to the lack of multiple steps; however, during each phase of the plan shareholders are involved and supported. The needs that are identified must be relevant to the shareholders; the organization must allocate the needed resources. When there is initiative taking, vision building, staff training, monitoring, and a continual adjusting for feedback, the plan will have a better chance to succeed. Sustaining the focus and momentum of the plan will not take place without an institutional commitment; this last important phase requires constant assistance with new practices and the removal of competing priorities (Holcomb, 2001).
Educational leaders and shareholders may choose to use one or a combination of models to meet the needs of a high quality organization that is encountering change for improvement. The models have many commonalities among them that allow leaders to mesh ideas and use various phases that fit certain leadership styles. The important note to consider in strategic planning is involving shareholders and trying to gain consensus among groups by fostering a trusting environment that nurtures a sharing of ideas that produces decisions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it (Bryson, 1995).
The following phases that are presented by Holcomb allow the educational leader to follow a plan while asking the important questions along the journey of strategic planning. Within each phase accompanying strategies and reference lists will aid all who undertake this important task.