CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
2.6. MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF ECCD DIRECTORS
2.6.1 ECCD directors’ planning functions
ECCD directors’ planning function involves preparing a performance improvement plan. In preparing the plan, directors perform comprehensive assessments of their ECCD centres’
performance in the previous year and come up with a plan that serves as a tool and a roadmap for improving the needs and quality of ECCD outcomes (Ifeyinwe, 2019; Musingafi, Zebron, Kaseke & Chaminuka, 2014; Sadik, 2018). Meyers and VanGronigen (2019) view planning as one of the director’s responsibilities, while Huber and Conway (2015) view performance
46
improvement planning as a tool to turn around low-performing ECCD centres. VanGronigen and Meyers (2017) identify the following aspects of a school improvement plan: (i) mission and vision of the ECCD centre; (ii) targets/goals to be accomplished and their action steps; (iii) implementation timeframe; and (iv) measurable results.
Andriany, Soefijanto and Wahyudi (2019) also identify the following as ECCD directors’
management function of planning:
i. comprehensive needs assessment of the ECCD centre, to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT);
ii. formulation of ECCD centre’s mission and vision;
iii. statement of centre’s values, development of centre’s policies and philosophy;
iv. identification of goals;
v. statement of centre’s strategic objectives;
vi. development of plan’s implementation strategies; and vii. design of control mechanisms.
Studies on school improvement plans revealed that school directors should ensure that the plans meet specific quality elements to accomplish their intended purpose. First, the plan should be comprehensive and unified to align with the centre’s vision, mission, values, and priorities.
Second, the plan should have the possibility of data-driven strategies. Third, the plan should contain clear goals and implementation strategies. Fourth, there must be a distinct description of data-based and monitoring mechanisms. Fifth, centre directors must involve key stakeholders, including community members, in the planning process. Sixth, there must be a provision for professional development opportunities for staff (Carvalho, Cabral, Verdasca, & Alves, 2021b;
Strunk, Marsh, Bush-Mecenas & Duque, 2016; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2020).
Strunk et al. (2016) conducted a study on the quality of ECCD centre improvement plans and identified the following elements of ECCD centre plans, which directors must ensure when undertaking the management function of planning:
i. plans that are aligned with ECCD centre’s mission and vision;
ii. plans that are tailored to children’s context;
iii. plans that provide good opportunities for children and centre personnel;
47 iv. plans that are based on evidence and research;
v. effective stakeholder involvement in planning processes, including parent and community members, to ensure cooperation and support;
vi. tactical use of statistics;
vii. realistic plans that ensure that it is implementable to achieve targets;
viii. flexible governance system utilised by directors; and
quality writing of plans to ensure the final plan is technically sound.
In addition to the above indicators of planning practices of ECCD centre directors, other researchers argue that quality planning practices can be achieved through a systems perspective.
Previous researchers have acknowledged that adopting a systems perspective to planning and management ensures incessant appraisal of plan outputs and feedback to improve performance (Arnold &Wade, 2015; Bozkus, 2014). Managers must give equal attention to the various management phases, namely input, process, and output. Literature revealed that Von Bertalanffy’s (1972) System Theory is gradually being imported into educational institution management. Planning using the inputs, processes, and outcomes approach is described below:
Planning inputs:
The planning input quality indicator assesses the following:
i. The extent to which ECCD centre directors use external support, such as external agencies and documents, to guide planning for improvement.
ii. Internal guidance, such as leadership and use of expertise within the ECCD centre community, which guides planning.
iii. Professional development through the provision of in-service support for attending courses to enhance caregivers and teachers’ capacity to engage in planning or support in other ways (Bickmore, Roberts, Gonzales, 2020; Strunk, Marsh, Bush-Mecenas &
Duque, 2016; VanGronigen, & Meyers, 2017).
48 Planning processes:
The planning process quality component includes indicators such as:
i. The extent of collaboration such to which ECCD centre directors ensure all partners are actively engaged in the planning process.
ii. Actions focused on improvements such as the use of whole-ECCCD centre review, establishing priorities, action planning, and regular monitoring of implementation.
iii. Systematic, ongoing commitmentto planning, such as the extent to which ECCD centre directors establish structures to support planning and commitment to improvement (Bickmore, Roberts & Gonzales, 2020; Strunk et al., 2016; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2017).
Planning outcomes:
Planning outcomes quality component includes:
i. ECCD centre director’s awareness of concepts of ECCD improvement planning, such as appreciation of the value of whole-ECCD centre planning in leading improvement.
ii. Professional development, such as measuring changes in attitudes and practices due to planning.
iii. Effective use of a wide range of material resources such as provision, availability and use of resources to support learning in priority areas.
iv. Effective use of a broad range of teaching methodologies, such as using a more comprehensive range of teaching approaches.
v. Active, participative learning, such as ECCD experiences for children.
vi. Improved attainment by children, which can be achieved through monitoring and measurement of children’s ECCD achievement and the effect of planning on improved children’s ECCD attainment (Bickmore, Roberts & Gonzales, 2020; Duke, 2015; Strunk et al., 2016; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2017).
.
Bickmore et al. (2020) suggest that school improvement plans should emerge from a comprehensive school strategy, and its implementation should be formulated to support the school's overall mission. Meyers and VanGronigen (2019) emphasise the relationship between the quality of the planning process and the quality of its implementation action steps since a high- quality planning process is regarded as the foundation that supports the school's activities in the
49
path of improvement. While Acton (2021) argues that quality plans can guide school personnel to specific prioritised targets and goals, Strunk et al. (2016) claim that quality improvement plans incorporate key stakeholders’ views in implementing action steps.
The abovementioned studies have highlighted that ECCD centre improvement plans serve as holistic ECCD centre improvement tools. It is, therefore, not surprising that education reforms worldwide, including in Ghana, chose school improvement planning as a vehicle for achieving improvement (Agi, 2017; Schlebusch & Mokhatle, 2016). For instance, in Ghana, School Performance Improvement Planning (SPIP) was introduced in 2006 as a national policy due to the introduction of the governmental Capitation Grant to encourage public schools to efficiently utilise the grant to plan and implement school quality improvement programmes. Apart from the improvement purpose of the grant, it also intended to build the capacity of local communities to sufficiently implement fiscal decentralisation and encourage bottom-up planning at school level.
Improvement planning in Ghanaian public basic schools, including ECCD centres, was introduced as a condition for awarding the Capitation Grant (Ministry of Education, Science and Sports [MoESS], 2006).
Studies have acknowledged some difficulties associated with school improvement planning, such as the rigidity of targets and their top-down nature and plans to have similar structures, goals, and strategies (Schlebusch & Mokhatle, 2016; Strunk et al., 2016). Studies found that some school directors engage in school improvement planning simply because it is a requirement for the awarding of funds (Immordino, Gigliotti, Ruben, & Tromp, 2016; Meyers & Hitt, 2018;
Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019). VanGronigen and Meyers (2017) conducted a study on school improvement planning and found that most of the analysed plans lacked technical soundness and that planning processes lacked rigour and the involvement of key stakeholders.
The abovementioned studies focused almost exclusively on the disadvantages of government- sponsored school improvement planning at basic and secondary school levels. Furthermore, a closer investigation of literature on school improvement planning revealed that even though improvement planning has been widely adopted as a school improvement tool, research on the quality of planning inputs, processes, and outcomes at ECCD centres is sparse in the Ghanaian context. Additional studies are required to understand the key tenets of planning practices of
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.