CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
2.6. MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF ECCD DIRECTORS
2.6.2 Domains of Quality Improvement Planning
50
directors at ECCD centres in terms of quality improvement planning inputs, processes, and outcomes.
Existing research further showed that school improvement planning is not always acknowledged by stakeholders and is not planned with evidence-based data, which poses some questions about the technical soundness of the improvement planning processes. Some researchers also claimed that most ECCD stakeholders do not possess the skill set for planning and implementation processes (Schildkamp, 2019; Strunk et al., 2016; Wanjala & Rarieya, 2014). It is evident from the literature that knowledge of ECCD stakeholders on the quality of planning processes to ensure that the final plan is technically sound is lacking in some ECCD settings (Acton, 2021;
Schildkamp, 2019; Wanjala & Rarieya, 2014).
The above scholars agree that it is necessary to engage in cohesive and complete self-assessment of the ECCD centre to identify its strengths and weaknesses to achieve quality planning. In this respect, data-based processes are needed to discover the needs for ECCD centres, to include various stakeholders from the beginning by understanding ECCD community data, priorities, and approaches, and to collaborate and authenticate directors’ managerial decision-making (Acton, 2021; Schildkamp, 2019).
Finally, previous research showed that school improvement planning does not entirely assure school improvement and it entails considering the plans' quality. Accordingly, this current study deems it necessary to extend the understanding of the planning and enactment of methods for high-quality ECCD centre planning by directors.
51
school will be substantially improved from previous poor performance after implementing the plan. The plan should also exhibit convincing proof of the school’s obligation to and desire for its improvement effort. In addition, the level to which a clear and concise vision transforms to internal stakeholders, such as teaching and non-teaching staff, and external stakeholders, such as parents and community members, largely reveals the general success or failure of the plan’s implementation (Acton, 2021). Other researchers argue that engaging the school management team and community in this early vision-development phase builds awareness of collective authority and increases acceptance of the final school improvement plan (Schildkamp, 2019;
Wanjala & Rarieya, 2014).
2.6.2.2 Activities and progress measures planning
Having developed an improvement vision collectively, Acton (2021) and Strunk et al. (2016) maintain that the next phase of the planning domain is the development of activities and progress measures, which includes priority identification, process outcomes, progress indicators, and development of action steps. These are briefly discussed below:
• Identification and justification of improvement priorities domain
Under this quality planning domain, the school improvement planning team must identify two to four specific and clear, highly influential improvement priorities as the plan’s focus for a specific implementation period. Planners should also provide a fair and convincing justification for selecting each improvement priority that communicates why the priority requires immediate consideration to achieve the school’s improvement vision (Acton, 2021; Carvalho et al., 2021b;
Strunk et al., 2016).
• Process outcomes domain
Strunk et al. (2016) state that a quality school improvement plan should contain specific, realistic, and elaborate process outcomes for each priority to aid in achieving the school’s improvement vision. Process outcomes should also be aligned to each priority properly through convincing justifications.
Scholars claim that due to the complexities surrounding modern school management, schools rely on data-driven decision-making, making it easy for policymakers to quickly judge whether
52
improvement in children’s academic performance has increased or decreased (Strunk et al., 2016). Carvalho et al. (2021b) also found that many schools align their improvement plans with their national accountability benchmarks because those benchmarks are what the country uses to judge if a school is successful for a specific academic year. The author, therefore, recommends that instead of improvement plans concentrating on results, such as performance scores of learners, improvement process outcomes should instead focus on solving the fundamental problems that contribute to those results. Thus, process outcomes should also consider school- specific contextual factors contributing to attaining quality educational outcomes. Duke (2015) also added that quality school improvement plans should state all expected process outcomes and how each of those outcomes solves associated priorities, and this has the potential to increase stakeholders’ commitment and the possibility of successful implementation of the improvement plan.
• Progress indicators domain
Scholars recommend that for each process outcome, the plan must contain a range of performance indicators that serve as progress checkpoints to gauge the school’s current improvement in meeting the stated process outcomes. It was further recommended that all indicators implicitly and purposefully align with each process outcome. In addition, school self- review and reflection practices should be implicitly fused into the school’s schedules or routines (Duke, 2015; Wanjala & Rarieya, 2014; Meyers & Hitt,2018). Strunk et al. (2016) recommend effective common planning time where the school management team could review meeting notes for content and quality or observe teachers’ interaction with learners to monitor progress and direction of achievement. Expected progress indicators in school settings can take the form of formative appraisal to monitor and modify methodologies quickly (Chukwumah, 2015; Domingo et al., 2020; Meyer, Bendikson & Le Fevre, 2020).
• Action steps development domain
The final component of activities and progress measures recommended by researchers states that the improvement plan should contain detailed, specific, and elaborate action steps for each process outcome (Acton, 2021; Schildkamp, 2019). It is recommended that stated action steps should not be routine and should properly present elaborate tactics for realising process outcomes (Duke, 2015). In addition, Dunaway et al. (2012), and Strunk et al. (2016) also recommend that
53
each action step must purposefully align with and present sound support to achieve all process outcomes. This domain is recognised as the operationalisation of the school improvement vision and related priorities since it manifests the activities that must be implemented to accomplish improvement goals (Duke, 2015). Nonetheless, other studies indicate that many school improvement plans usually state many action steps which are not focused and do not show creative strategies to solve poor performance issues (Garcia & Cerado, 2020). Therefore, this planning phase recommends that if a school develops an improvement vision that is focused on two to four priorities and based on comprehensive root cause analysis, action steps will be much more focused and influential in maximising the efforts of implementation stakeholders (Immordino et al., 2016).
2.6.2.3 Context planning domain
Researchers identified two categories of contexts that promote quality school improvement planning: school context and root cause analysis.
• School context domain
Acton (2021) and Strunk et al. (2016) indicate that a technically sound school improvement plan should establish a deep comprehension of the school’s environment, involving the internal community, such as school personnel, and target learner population, and external community sub-groups, such as parents, community members, and the education district. It was further recommended that, if possible, a priority and its fundamental components purposely address and focus on the needs of specific learner target populations and their subcategories (Acton, 2021;
Strunk et al., 2016).
Previous researchers maintain that an educational institution's conditions, realities, nuances and contexts necessitate a context-specific approach. One dominant belief is that efficient improvements in one school environment will be successful in another entirely different environment. While the above assertion proved true in some cases, the research identified some drawbacks of adopting a one-size-fits-all improvement effort without considering context- specific factors that influence improvement plan implementation (Acton, 2021; Strunk et al., 2016). Studies established that improvement approaches and resources from other contexts may
54
be entirely essential and appropriate to a school’s improvement vision and environment but may require revisions to balance its specific environment and increase its effectiveness and efficiency.
• Root cause analysis domain
Root cause analysis, also known as environmental scanning, is a planning procedure that involves discovering why a performance gap has occurred or existed. Environmental scanning involves utilising statistics and evidence sources to detect and resolve the root causes of the gaps between the improvement vision and the current performance status of the school (Acton, 2021; Duke, 2015).
Scholars maintain that this planning domain involves ensuring that the improvement planning team uses a range of suitable data sources and evidence to communicate, in unambiguous terms, details of the root causes for all priorities identified with a comprehensive description of the associations between each priority’s justification and its root causes. It is recommended that the association should be comprehensive, sound, and concisely describe the root causes of all priorities (Acton, 2021; Duke, 2015; Schildkamp, 2019). School environment analysis ensures that critical stakeholders collectively dig deep into the school's current performance and the root cause of the current performance, thereby unearthing the current behaviour and practices of the key improvement implementation team (Acton, 2021; Duke, 2015; Schildkamp, 2019). Thus, incorrect root cause analysis may cause a school to mistakenly identify causes, and their solutions may not be appropriate in bringing about ideal improvement. Consequently, Duke (2015) argues that it is valuable to comprehensively and accurately analyse the available data to identify root causes precisely. This can be achieved via exercises like fishbone diagrams and other SWOT analyses or exercises that encourage the planning team to continuously try to find answers to the root cause of the poor performance.
2.6.2.4 Organisation planning domain
A rubric for assessing the quality of school improvement plans developed by VanGronigen, Meyers, and Hitt (2017) stipulates three domains that should be included in the organisation of improvement plans, namely sequencing, schedule/timeline, and alignment, as discussed below.
55
• Sequencing domain
To ensure proper sequencing, Duke (2015) argues that the planning team should ensure that a plan comprises a sequence of priorities, process outcomes, and action steps that is reasonable and deliberate, creating the required backing and impetus to help achieve process outcomes, priorities, and vision. VanGronigen, Meyers, and Hitt (2017) suggest that the plan should contain a convincing sequencing justification. In his rubric for assessing the quality of school improvement planning, Duke (2015) recommends that a plan should be organised in such a way as to ensure that priorities come before process outcomes and then action steps in this specific sequence.
• Schedule/timeline domain
VanGronigen, Meyers, and Hitt (2017), in their rubric for assessing the quality of school improvement planning, recommend that the planning team should ensure that the plan contains a comprehensive, detailed schedule/timeline of actions and processes to be undertaken within the plan’s defined timeframe. Duke (2015) also notes that the planning team must ensure that the plan offers a specific and unambiguous indication of precise times that indicate how the school will achieve indicators aligned with process outcomes and help achieve priorities and, eventually, achieve its improvement vision.
• Alignment domain
Meyers and VanGronigen (2019) indicate that one of the quality characteristics of an improvement plan is that the planners ensure that it shows a complete internal alignment of all important aspects of the plan. Examples of these aspects include the priorities, school environment, process outcomes, and action steps to the school’s main improvement vision.
Strunk et al. (2016) further recommend that planners provide complete justification for alignment and details of the school’s improvement vision and how it is connected with the district’s improvement vision. Thus, the focus of this planning domain is on ensuring that there is coherence in all elements of the improvement plan.
56 2.6.2.5 Resources planning domain
• Directly responsible person domain
The final planning domain recommended by VanGronigen, Meyers, and Hitt (2017) is resources, which involve individuals responsible for the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and internal and external support for planning and implementation. The authors recommend that the planning team indicate accountable persons against each action step. This should be done so that responsibilities are evenly distributed among key responsible persons rather than concentrated around a few people or parties.
Assigning responsibilities to key implementers of the school improvement plan is an accountability mechanism that openly identifies the responsible person or people. Consequently, it makes it possible for the plan’s action steps to be implemented effectively when key stakeholders are made to own the plan and its implementation (Domingo et al., 2020; Strunk et al., 2016). This implies that if action steps lack directly responsible persons or groups, implementation gaps could happen, which may reduce stakeholders’ support, demoralise the governance and leadership team, and weaken more comprehensive school turnaround efforts.
Previous research recommends that school directors should not be directly responsible for any priority but instead play the role of facilitator to reinforce and ensure others are held responsible or accountable for progress on action steps (Duke, 2015; Meyers & Hitt, 2017). Two main benefits to be derived from a directly responsible person mechanism are that it averts utilising the director’s restricted free time, promotes distributed leadership practice of school turnaround implementation efforts amongst the school community, and establishes opportunities for shared decision-making (Acton, 2021).
• Supports domain
The final planning domain under resources, as recommended by VanGronigen, Meyers, and Hitt (2017), is that planners should ensure that the final plan purposely indicates available support that associates with and aids in carrying out the improvement efforts and provides a complete description of how support will be unified to help achieve the improvement vision. The authors recommend that the description should be concise and defend the utilisation of available support.
57
If there is no available support to implement an improvement vision, the plan should precisely indicate why and how the school will involve continuous school-community environmental scanning to find potential available support (Duke, 2015).
Prior research acknowledges that identifying available resources is crucial to improvement planning; hence efforts should be made to ensure that school improvement plans intentionally use all resources and support available within the school, district and community to help achieve the improvement vision. The authors maintain that improvement efforts are usually problematic, time and effort-intensive, and schools cannot improve without resources and support from within the school, community, and district (Duke, 2015; Meyer et al., 2020; Strunk et al., 2016).
From the literature, performance improvement planning scholars have identified twelve main domains that planners should consider ensuring plans are technically sound to achieve their intended purpose. There was no evidence in the literature indicating that studies have been conducted on school improvement planning practices of directors at ECCD centres in Ghana since the introduction of nationwide school improvement planning at public ECCD centres in 2007. Accordingly, this study needs to explore planning practices of directors to understand their experiences and planning challenges. The next sub-section reviews literature on organising practices of ECCD directors.