Role of Strategic Planning in 21st Century Schools
Douglas P. DeVore
Professor
University of La Verne
Scholars, policy makers and public educational leaders have embraced the importance of strategic planning over the years and have adopted strategic planning processes from the business world (Miech, 1995). The educational use of strategic planning as a management planning strategy emerged in the 1980’s and by the end of that decade there was an explosion of school districts in the country using and/or adopting their strategic plan (Conley, 1992). As Miech points out in his article The Rise and Fall of
Strategic Planning and Strategic Planning in Education (1995) the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) and the Association  for  Supervision  and  Curriculum
Development  (ASCD)  were  both  very  instrumental  in  encouraging  districts  engage   in  and  develop  a  strategic  plan.  McCune’s   Guide  to   Strategic  Planning  for  Educators
(1986)  and  Cook’s   Strategic  Planning  for  America's  Schools   (1988)  became   commonplace  on  the  shelves  of  Superintendents  and  strategic  planning  workshops   for  public  educators  and  policy  makers  became  big  business  across  the  nation.
Strategic Planning or Strategic Fad
The mechanistic approach to strategic planning by a majority of public school districts in the past 20 years has come under scrutiny regarding the value of strategic planning for public school districts (Conley, 1993; Mintzberg, 1994a). There is evidence from both the business environment and the educational environment that the act of strategic planning does not equate to an increase in productivity, such as increased profits for business or increased student achievement for school districts (Miech, 1995;
Mintzberg, 1994d). The connection (or lack of connection) for strategic planning and student achievement has been addressed for years. A Kentucky study by Basham and
Lunenburg (1989) found there was no direct link between strategic planning and student

achievement. Twenty plus years later there is still a lack of scholarly studies demonstrating a direct link to strategic planning and higher student achievement.
The lack of overwhelming direct evidence for strategic planning and increased student achievement has lead some scholars in the post modern organizational view to proclaim that traditional strategic planning is not a benefit for 21 st Century school districts (Conely, 1992). Kaufman and Herman (1990) predicted this possibility when they stated the following:
"Strategic planning" is in danger of becoming just an educational fad. It is much too valuable an advance to suffer such a fate. Some educators have borrowed a page from the industrialists' book and embraced it — often without a clear idea of what it is, what it should deliver, and how it differs from other types of planning.
(p. xiii)
Importance of Strategic Planning for Public Education
The body of scholarly literature in the past 20 years focuses more on the ‘how’ of strategic planning when discussing the value for organizations in the 21 st Century (Cook,
2004; Henley, 2006; Mintzberg, 1994c; Porter, 1996; Porter, 2008; Reeves, 2008;
Schmoker, 2004). Mintzberg (1994c), Cook (2004) and Reeves (2008) are among a few who make a strong case that strategic planning is not dead or a fad but the traditional forms of strategic planning have become mechanistic. The challenge is to engage in strategic thinking versus strategic planning as Mintzberg (1994c) states: “when organizations understand the difference between planning and strategic thinking, they can get back to what the strategy-making process should be” (p. 107).
The role and challenge for strategic planning in our 21 st Century schools is to become strategic thinking organizations that are able to use the structure of traditional strategic planning. Cook (2004) encourages educational organizations to use a strategic thinking approach when he states:
But strategic planning, if it is true to its name and origin, will result in a completely new way of thinking and acting. “Organization” transforms itself into a verb, and it involves every aspect, every energy, and every intelligence of those bonded together by common values and committed to a mutual purpose. (p. 83)
2

The traditional strategic planning engaged by most schools in the past 20 years has used a model that is a linear planning process and assumes the organization can exert reasonable control over current and future events (Lawrence, 1999). It is often approached with the thought that the future, through the use of specific, linear plans, can be predictable (Mintzeber, 1999; Liedtka, 1998, Hamel, G. & Prahalad, 1989). The need for strategic planning for educational organizations that incorporate strategic thinking requires less emphasis on the plan and greater emphasis on creativity and synthesis
(Mintzberg, 2004d). This is supported in the literature as pointed out by Henley (2006) when he states: “the current focus and emphasis of strategic planning appears to have changed in many organizations. Less emphasis is being put on core ideology (mission statements and values) and more upon developing practical initiatives (p. 4). Liedtka
(1998) presents a clear contrast between traditional strategic planning and strategic thinking when she stated:
Traditional planning asserts control through measurement systems, assuming that organizations can measure and monitor important variables both accurately and quickly. Strategic thinking relies instead on self-reference -a sense of strategic intent and purpose embedded in the minds of managers throughout the organization that guides their choices on a daily basis in a process that is often difficult to measure and monitor from above. (p. 32)
In summing up a large body of current literature on the strategic planning, strategic thinking movement for organizational planning Liedtka (1998) goes on to state:
Traditional planning assumes that the challenge of setting strategic direction is primarily analytic. Strategic thinking sees strategy and change as inescapably linked and assumes that finding new strategic options and implementing them successfully is harder and more important than evaluating them. Finally, traditional planning processes focus on the creation of the plan as the ultimate object. Strategic thinking sees the planning process itself as a critical value-adding element. (p. 32)
3

Strategic Thinking and Planning Strategies for 21 st Century Schools
It is clear from the literature and current practice of many organizations involved with successful planning that there is a need to incorporate both strategic thinking and strategic planning (Anderson, et al., 2006; Basham and Lunenburg, 1989). There is no need to abandon components of traditional strategic planning but there is a great need to fuse it with strategic thinking as move through the complexity, chaos and every changing times in 21 st Century education (Fitzgerald, 1999; Liedtka, 1998). There are a number of terms used to describe this type of planning and for the sake of this policy paper the term strategic thinking-planning process will be used to describe the holistic approach that blends traditional planning with the systems, strategic thinking approach.
To move from traditional strategic planning to a 21 st Century strategic thinking – planning process, schools and districts need to focus on a strategic process that embraces the following five systems thinking strategies (Cook, 2004; Lawrence, 1999; Liedtka,
1998; Mintzberg, 1994d; Reeves, 2008):
1) A systems view for planning and understanding the organization;
2) Genuine involvement of all stakeholders;
3) A past, present, future approach;
4) Intelligent opportunism;
5) Monitoring and evaluating the plan and action initiatives.
A systems view strategy to educational organizational planning implies leaders have a genuine understanding of the importance of parts of system, including the organizations systemic interaction with the external as well as internal environments.
They need to understand the importance of interdependencies of all parts of the organization in regards to leading successful change via the strategic planning-thinking process (Cook, 2004; Senge, 2006). An example would be a change towards higher student achievement. This systemic change would require the incorporation and understanding of the importance of the interaction between the external and internal environments of the school system such as, finance, bargaining units, staff development efforts, policies and the board, and parents to name a few of the key interdependencies needed to succeed.
4

The involvement of all stakeholders is critical for the strategic thinking approach.
Traditional strategic planning has often emanated from the Board and Superintendent leadership and their desire to make it clear, concise and easily evaluated, step-by-step.
Mintzberg (1999) points out the folly of top down driving strategic planning and the importance of all stakeholder involvement when he states: “You’ve precluded 99 percent of the people in the organization from having an impact on strategy” (p. 38). He goes on to elaborate this principle stating:
And so a healthy strategy system in any company is one in which there’s a tremendous amount of communication and interaction around ideas and possibilities - from the ground, from middle management, from senior management - weaving back and forth, in and out. (p. 41)
Leading a strategic thinking planning process requires skillful crafting beginning with selection of key stakeholder representation.
The past, present, future strategy is not one that is solely focused on the future outcome. It is a strategy for planning that embraces the importance of understanding the past and present realities as critical to developing strategy and action initiatives that serve to support change towards a new reality or future. This strategy understands the folly in attempting to predict the future, but values the need to actively and thoughtfully move to a desired future.
The development of the strategic vision for a desired future/change and action initiatives to pull a school towards the change must identify core competencies of the organization (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). Twenty first century school planning should embrace the appreciative inquiry change strategy for the purpose of bringing stakeholders together to identify these competencies and build on them to move towards the future state desired. The use of scenario planning (Liedtka, 1998; Schoemaker, 1995), looking at different future outcomes based on what is known, is a great tool for seeking strategic direction for education in the future that meets the needs of increasing student achievement.
The systems thinking strategy of intelligent opportunism is in place when leadership appreciates the complexity of change that is moving towards a desired future and can embrace alternative initiatives along the strategic journey. It is important to
5

embrace the novelty that is associated with viable strategic planning-thinking (Lawrence,
1999). Too many school strategic plans are developed with linear thinking/analysis towards an intended outcome and fail to achieve their intended outcome of reaching the vision intended for the school. The lack of creative strategic thinking linked with traditional analysis is at the heart of this problem. “Great strategies like great works of art or scientific discoveries call for technical mastery in the working out but originate in insights that are beyond the reach of conscious analysis (Hussey, 2001, p. 212).
The future is not predictable as implied in traditional strategic planning (Liedtka,
1998; Mintzberg, 1994b; Porter, 2008) and system thinking requires involvement from all stakeholders in an on-going process that is not top down communication. It is the cross communication with an openness to the new or alternative strategy that underlies the concept of intelligent opportunism. The creative tension from this approach is what takes traditional planning from bogging down with deliberate strategies rather than moving forward with emergent strategy (Mintzberg, 1999)
The strategy of monitoring and evaluating the plan and action initiatives goes beyond the traditional planning model that uses a 3-5 year cycle for planning. The strategic thinking leadership understands that the constant interplay of the internal/external environment on the organization calls for in real time monitoring evaluating and adjusting. This type of activity is built into the strategic planning-thinking process 2-4 times per year. Monitoring the environment on a regular basis supports the strategy of intelligent opportunism and provides the opportunity to monitor the strategic initiatives with the ability to adjust as needed based on changes with the internal and external environment.
Conclusion
The need for developing a vision for the future is as important today as in the past.
Unfortunately the traditional strategic planning processes are based on a linear, analytic process and did not produce the results hope for by schools and districts across the nation.
Leidtka (1998) point out that:
A broadened view of the strategy-making process, then, would incorporate both strategic thinking and strategic programming as related activities, each valuable in
6

its own right, in an ongoing process of creating and disrupting the alignment between an organization's present and its future. (p. 33)
Educational leaders and policy makers should not abandon the strategic process. Rather, it is recommended that they seek to incorporate strategic planning processes that are both planning in nature and strategic thinking by design. The creative, strategic thinking process will yield strategies for effective change to pull a school or district towards their desired future. However, the systems thinking process and strategies will still need to be operationalized by strategic planning efforts.
References
Andersen, D. F., John M., B., Richardson, G. P., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., & Finn, C. B.
(2006). Integrating Modes of Systems Thinking into Strategic Planning Education and Practice: The Thinking Persons' Institute Approach. Journal Of Public Affairs
Education , 12(3), 265-293.
Basham, V., & Lunenburg, F. (1989). Strategic planning, student achievement and school district financial and demographic factors. Planning and Changing , 20(3), 158–
171.
Conley, D. (1992, April). Strategic planning in America's schools: An exploratory study.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
Conley, D. (1993, April). Strategic planning in practice: An analysis of purposes, goals, and procedures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta.
Cook, B. (1988). Strategic planning for America's schools.
Arlington, VA: American
Association of School Administrators.
Cook, W. J. (2004). When the smoke clears. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (1), 73–75, 83.
Fitzgerald, S. (1999). Strategic thinking and the new science: Planning in the midst of chaos, complexity, and change. Human Resource Planning , 22(3), 55-56.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review . May-
June, pp. 63 – 76.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future.
Harvard Business
Review, 72 , 122-122. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227759539?accountid=25355 on December 19, 2012.
7

Henley, W. E. (2006). Strategic planning: Left-brain or right-brain-rethinking it.
Retrieved from http://www.apwa.net/Resources/Reporter/Articles/2006/12/Strategic-Planning-
Left-Brain-or-Right-Brain--Rethinking-it on December 18, 2012.
Hussey, D. (2001). Creative strategic thinking and the analytical process: Critical factors for strategic success.
Strategic Change, 10 (4), 201-213. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216500419?accountid=25355 on December
18, 2012.
Kaufman, Roger, and Jerry Herman. (1991) Strategic Planning in Education: Rethinking,
Restructuring, Revitalizing.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
Lawrence, Eton. (1999). Strategic thinking: A discussion paper.
Prepared for the
Research Directorate, Policy, Research and Communications Branch, Public
Service commissions of Canada. April, 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/bus302/Course/Materials/Cases/strategic.thinking.pdf on
December 19, 2012.
Liedtka, J. M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning.
Strategy &
Leadership, 26 (4), 30-35. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194364332?accountid=25355 on December
17, 2012.
McCune, S. D. (1986) Guide to Strategic Planning for Educators . Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington, DC. Available from:
ERIC, Ipswich, MA. Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED278089
Miech, E.J. (1995). “The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning,” Editors’ Review, Harvard
Educational Review, 65(3), 504-513.
Mintzberg, H. (1994a). Rethinking strategic planning, part I: Pitfalls and fallacies. Long
Range Planning , 27(3), pp. 12–21.
Mintzberg, H. (1994b). Rethinking strategic planning, part II: New roles for planners.
Long Range Planning , 27(3), pp. 22–30.
Mintzberg, H. (1994c). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review ,
72(1), pp. 107–114.
Mintzberg, H. (1994d). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
8

Mintzberg, Henry (1999). “Bees, flies, and CEOs; do we have too many bees making strategy and not enough flies?,” Across The Board , January, pp. 37-42. Retrieved from http://www.tcbreview.com.beta4.inpowercms.com/sites/www/Uploads/images/Wi nter%202012/PDFs/Left%20Panel/ATB-01-1999-06.pdf on December 21, 2012.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review . November/December,
1996, pp. 61 – 78.
Porter, M. E. (2008). The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy. Harvard
Business Review . January, pp. 25 – 40.
Reeves, D. B. (2008). Making strategic planning work. Informative Assessment , January,
65(4), pp. 86-87.
Schmoker, M. J. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 (6), 424–432.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking.
Sloan
Management Review, 36 (2), 25-25. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224969642?accountid=25355
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization.
New York, NY. Doubleday/Currency
9