MODULE I EDUCATIONAL PLANNING CONCEPTS, THEORIES, MODELS AND PERSPECTIVES

INTRODUCTION Module I is an introduction to educational planning and management. It surveys planning and development in the Third World; presents the theories, concepts and rationale of planning; dissects various planning process models; and presents strategic planning perspectives. An understanding of strategic planning concepts, theories, process models and perspectives, and rationale is a good preparation for strategic plan crafting. LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of this module, you should be able to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Describe the beginnings of educational planning; Discuss planning theories, concepts and rationale; Explain the various planning process models; and Describe the different planning perspectives. LESSON 1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE THIRD WORLD
THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT DECADE

After the Second World War, the United States together with other developed countries started a foreign aid program. The initiative, which began as a program for reconstruction, became economic and technical assistance in such areas as health, education and agriculture. Then it expanded to include public administration and management. For more than a decade, university professors and private business consultants provided socio-economic programs and technical assistance in public administration and management to governments and universities in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Western academicians and consultants exported to the recipient countries various administrative and financial processes and technologies, which were very important in fostering development in the Third World. This was based on the perception that recipient countries generally lacked the administrative capability for planning and implementing plans. To remedy the situation, administrative technologies were transferred to improve the machinery of the national governments of developing countries.

This intervention resulted to the adoption of development planning as a cornerstone in the pursuit of economic development in recipient countries. Educational Planning in the Third World Developed countries formally introduced educational planning in Third World countries in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The objectives of educational plans, which were integrated in national development plans, of Third World countries focused on overseeing the expansion of educational systems. Great hopes were placed in educational planning for it served as a foundation in setting objectives, goals and priorities, implementing educational policies, and maximizing the use of limited resources. Singh (1990) enumerates the significant impact of educational planning in Third World countries during the late 1960s as follows: (a) the growth and development of educational systems; (b) development of educational administration and the setting up of planning organizations within the educational system; and (c) enhanced perception on the problem of efficiency in the educational system. The Paris Conference on Policies for Educational Growth in the early parts of the 70s reviewed the nature and consequences of educational growth, dissected current problems, and came up with planning guidelines and policies. However, the proposed policies were not implemented because of the research results that highlighted the inadequacy of inputs in producing the desired educational outputs. Educational planning, therefore, veered toward the adoption of policies aimed at attaining effective educational outcomes concerning the learner given his socio-economic status and other resources. The economic crises in the 1970s and 1980s brought about by the uncontrolled rise in the price of oil drastically changed the setting in which educational institutions in Third World countries operated. Many developing countries implemented major cuts in public expenditures which limited resources for education. Educational planning faced a new challenge in the 1990s that of developing a paradigm or approach of harmonizing the loose linkage between greatly reduced budget and the goal for quality education (Ross and Mahlch, 1990). While Third World countries benefited immensely from educational planning from the 1960s to the 1990s, their educational systems also faced problems. Among these problems were: (a) excessive quantitative orientation, that is, planning approach had been predominantly quantitative both in analysis and normative aspects; (b) educational planning had been overly centralized in the decision-making process; (c) weakness in implementation; and (d) insufficiency of the evaluation dimension of educational planning (Singh, 1990). As a field of study, educational planning managed to grow and progress even while it was initially an integral part of national development planning. Attracting a sizeable number of

followers and adherents, educational planning developed as a separate field of specialization in educational management. Planning in Higher Education in the Philippines Educational planning in the Philippines is as old as its educational system. Educational surveys and studies were made to provide a basis for the restructuring of Philippine education. The more important ones were the Monroe Survey in 1925, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission (UNESCO) Mission in 1949, the joint Congressional Committee of Education Survey of 1949, the Swanson Survey in 1960, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) in 1970, and the Congressional Committee on Education (EDCOM). Interestingly, a significant point in the findings of the above surveys is the observation of the PCSPE that Philippine education was weak in educational planning. This observation is supported by several factors, namely: (a) the lack of a clear definition of the role of education in national development; (b) the absence of long-range goal setting performance targets for each operational component of the educational system; (c) the absence of policy guidelines that define the proper function of each educational level or sector; (d) the nature of decision making process of both individuals and educational institutions that is based on forced choice rather than guided selection; and (e) the disproportionate magnitude of educational responsibility relative to the capacity of the economy to support the corresponding requirements for educational service (Miclat, 2005). Advent of Educational Planning The promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 6-A, popularly known as the Educational Development Decree of 1992, gave emphasis to educational planning in education. The Decree provided for a broad general education that will assist each individual to respond effectively to changing needs and conditions of the nation through a system of educational planning and evaluation. The Integrated Reorganization Plan of 1972 put this into action by providing an office for Planning Service in the reorganized structure of the then Department of Education and Culture. The three decades that followed had been problematic for tertiary education in the country. State-run universities and colleges had mushroomed from 23 in 1972 and 78 in 1984. Today, there are now more than 100 tax-funded colleges and universities in the Philippines. As a consequence of this proliferation of SUCs, the budget for education significantly increased from 1978 to 1990 resulting to the ballooning of the budget. Eventually, the budget of many SUCs had to be cut due to reduced public budget and increased debt burden. The issuance of Letter of Instruction No. 1461 on May 23, 1985 provided the necessary impetus for planning among SUCs. The LOI required SUCs to formulate long-term development plans including a physical development plan that support the manpower goals 3

of the region where the SUCs are located and of the entire country. Moreover, each university or college is mandated to identify a field of specialization that is defined in its charter, its capability to implement well taking into account its available resources, and the educational opportunities in other SUCs and private education institutions in the area. Answering the call, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), forerunner of the Department of Education (DepEd), organized two training programs on institutional development planning in collaboration with the Development Academy of the Philippines and the Philippine Association of State Colleges and Universities. The Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) study of 1992 found that the quality of Philippine education was declining continuously. As a result, the EDCOM recommended the restructuring of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports into three agencies, namely: the Commission on Higher Education, which oversees tertiary education, the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, which is responsible for short-term manpower skills training, and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, which was renamed as the Department of Education (DepEd), which will take charge of kindergarten, elementary, and secondary education. The Commission on Higher Education came up with its first Long-Term Higher Education Development Plan (1996-2005). The plan served as the blueprint of change, reform and innovation in higher education. Subsequently, the Commission required all SUCs and CHED-supervised higher education institutions in the country to formulate and submit their respective ten-year development plan. In the private sector, the preparation of a long-term plan is a requirement for the grant of permit to operate a college or university.

LESSON 2 PLANNING THEORIES, CONCEPTS, AND RATIONALE

PLANNING THEORIES

The last five decades following the 1960s saw the unprecedented growth of planning in both the developed and Third World countries. Planning has become an ubiquitous activity engaged in by organizations and individuals everywhere. There are four major planning theories. These are: (a) philosophical synthesis; (b) rationalism; (c) organizational development; and (d) empiricism (Miclat, 2005 citing Adams, 1991). Philosophical Synthesis This theory emphasizes a holistic approach to planning which includes information on social, economic, political, cultural and ethical conditions as well as the environmental background of the institution or organization for which planning will be undertaken. Rationalism

Rationalism looks at people as a utility. Rational planning models follow a sequential, observable cycle that includes setting of goals, determining objectives, preparing plans, implementing the plans, and reviewing or evaluating results. Organizational development A planning approach that focuses primarily on ways to achieve organizational change. The organizational development approach includes a human relations approach to innovation and change in management style, employee satisfaction, decision-making processes, and the general health of the organization. Empiricism Empiricism is a planning theory that acknowledges the importance of studies on system behavior by social scientists concerned with planning theory. Empiricism is less normative, less concerned with planned social change, and uses a positivistic analytical framework. PLANNING CONCEPTS Planning The concept of planning emerged out of the development efforts and experiences of Third World countries when they adopted planning as the major instrument in the pursuit of their economic and social development. Development planning is principally an act of deciding ahead of time the what, the how, the when, and the who of identifying and determining development goals, policies and plans; and serious setting of alternative courses of action, procedures and strategies needed to achieve the purposes of government institutions (NEDA, 1985). In the crafting of development plans, socio-economic and political development programs are treated separately but are integrated within the purview of national aspirations, policies and goals. Strategic Planning Strategic planning is also viewed as focusing in on decision-making, information, and the future. Its very essence or substance is concentrated on the consideration of current decision options based on available data and taken in the light of their possible effects and consequences over a period of time. In other words, strategic planning is concerned with identifying foreseeable thrusts and weaknesses to avoid and strengths and opportunities to pursue. Strategic planning is the effective application of the best alternative information to decisions that have to be made to ensure a secure future (Day, 1997). From the point of view of education, strategic planning is considered as a set of purposeful actions that influence an organization in order to effect change. It is also regarded as a methodology aimed at future change of a present situation. It is viewed as long-term

planning in order to achieve a desired vision for an organization or school. It defines the whats to be achieved (Herman and Herman, 1994). It is generally agreed by experts that an acceptable definition of planning should embody the following features, namely: (a) an external orientation; (b) a holistic systematic approach; (c) a process for formulating plans, objectives, strategies and programs; (d) use of systematic methods in the analysis of strategic situation and alternatives; (e) a commitment to action; and (f) a knowledge of results (Miclat, 2005).
STRATEGIC PLANNING RATIONALE

Organizations need to plan far various reasons, namely: To reorient the organization or institution to the needs of the community. Community includes the mega community (e.g. the Philippine, Ugandan or Bahraini society), the macro community (the educational system), and the micro community, which is the private or the public sector education system. The necessity of reorienting the institution to the needs of the community has been underscored by Onuskin (1993) when he commented that In the majority of the institutions there is a serious gap between their activities and the actual societal and economic needs of their countries. Another serious consideration is that when people plan for expansion, a certain level of minimum standard must be observed. This will guarantee a certain level of minimum quality performance. In a higher education institution, such standard must cover the physical plant, facilities, and faculty and staff. More significantly, it should include student qualification and performance, curriculum, methodology, evaluation procedures and financing arrangements. This standard can be achieved through surveys, studies, operations research, and cost-benefit analysis. Effective strategic planning initiatives or efforts can make the organization a more responsive and viable instrument for socio-economic development of the nation. In the Philippines, the strategic development plans formulated and developed by the National Economic and Development Authority for the government becomes the major guideposts in identifying and determining priorities in every sector. For example, for the period 1993-1998 the program of the national government is concentrated on the improvement of the quality of life of the people. In the education sector, the primary objective is the delivery of quality education in all levels. Total human development and world competitiveness are the main strategies adopted to attain this objective. There is a need to establish priorities because of dwindling resources for sectoral services. As could be inferred from the National and Regional Development Plans and Annual Investment Programs, there are many

competing concerns which need government attention and support. There is therefore a need to prioritize programs and projects. Priority listing can be achieved by formulating a set of quantified criteria reached through consensus. Programs and projects can then be prioritized thereby assuring the rational allocation of scarce resources. While the knowledge explosion and the emergence of new technologies brought about by advances in science and information and communication technology blur our vision and make us less able to visualize the future, the nullifying effect of the inundation of new knowledge and technology for efforts in strategic planning underscores the need for planning. Strategic planning means a more realistic forecasting of events. Strategic planning always involves some view of the future.

LESSON 3 PLANING PROCESS MODELS

PLANNING MODELS

A model is defined as a set of variables classified as endogenous and exogenous causeeffect relationships among these variables and the consistency of these relations. It attempts to explain the phenomenon characterized by the endogenous and exogenous variables. A phenomenon is explained when a model of its endogenous variables can be determined, given those of the exogenous variables (Miclat, 2005). Hudson (1979) is the first scholar to develop a typology of planning models. Some of his models were, however, adopted and enriched from earlier works of other scholars. His planning typology consists of the a) synoptic model, b) incremental model, c) transactive model, d) advocacy model, and e) radical model. The synoptic model, which is pretty much identical to the rational model, includes four components, namely: goal setting, identification of alternatives, evaluation of means against ends, and implementation of decisions. In the incremental model, planning is constrained by available means than by the definition of goals. Any planned change consists of small or minimal adjustments from the past. The transactive model gives emphasize on interaction and interpersonal discussion and the process of mutual learning and understanding in planning. The fourth, advocacy model, underlines the confrontational features of decision-making. The radical model consists of two editions, one in which spontaneous activism is guided by self-reliance and mutual help, and the other, concentrates on organizational characteristics that inhibit the equitable distribution of goods and services.

Another scholar who came up with models of planning is Wilson (1989). Like Hudson, he also developed five planning typologies. He introduced three alternative models in addition to the rational and incremental models, namely mixed scanning, learning adaptive, and general systems models. The mixed scanning model is more realistic than the rational model and less passive than the incremental model. The learning adaptive model treats planning as a process of social learning built on individual psychosocial development that is best attained in small, non-hierarchical groups. The general systems model attempts to use the idea of a system as a unifying scientific paradigm. The planning typologies developed by Hudson and Wilson, as well as other theorists, were grouped and classified into two by Adams (1991), rational and interactive.
PLANNING PROCESS MODELS

A process is defined as the series of steps followed in doing an activity. These steps can be illustrated in graphical or symbolic terms atypical of a model. A planning process model supplies guidance in what ought to be done in practice. It also dictates explicitly what people ought to do in order for them to act accordingly and behave rationally so as to ascertain the successful completion of the process of activities (Miclat, 2005). In economics and public administration, strategic planning is perceived as development planning. In this view, development planning is the process of determining in advance the best possible way of achieving stated and defined development objectives within given period at the least cost. The model, as presented in Figure 1, has six major steps. These are: a) goal-setting; b) situational information; c) policy/strategy formulation; d) plans/programs/projects; e) implementation; and f) evaluation (NEDA, 1993).

Figure 1. NEDA (1993) Development Planning Model The model was later refined where the major steps were expanded into eight represented by circles arranged from left to right. The model, as shown in Figure 2, involves the following steps: 1) Situational analysis, 2) Goal/objective/ target setting, 3) Policy/strategy

formulation, 4) Program/project identification, 5) Investment programming, 6) Budgeting, 7) Implementation and monitoring and 8) Evaluation and plan update (NEDA, 1993).

Situation Analysis

Goals Objectives Targets

Policies Strategies

Program/ Project Identification

Investment Programming

Budgeting

Implementation and Monitoring

Evaluation and Plan Update

Project Preparation

Studies Researches

Planning

Programming

Budgeting

Implementation

Evaluation

Figure 2. NEDA (2001) Development Planning Process Model The line segments below the figure refer to the managerial functions and activities that are undertaken for each step in the model. The first step in the model is the situational analysis which requires the conduct of survey and research studies. The survey calls for the gathering of socio-cultural, demographic, economic, physical and natural data, and information in the environment. A survey of the organization has to be undertaken indicating past and present performances, programs and projects, manpower resources, budget, and infrastructures and equipment. The data are then analyzed and projected in order to identify concerns, issues and parameters, constraints and problems, and resources and opportunities which are used as inputs in planning. The outputs of these activities are the organizational profile and socio-economic profile of the community. The next step is the setting of goals, objectives and targets. A goal is a broad statement of an image of the future the organization seeks to achieve. The objective, which grows from the goal, refers to medium-range expectation which is pursued to satisfy the goal. The target evolves from the objective. It is the most specific statement of purpose which is simple, measurable, time bound and achievable. Once the goals, objectives and targets are crafted, more specific policy statements and strategies are framed for each of the areas of concern, e.g. social, economic, physical, political and administration. The integration of these to a framework plan for a particular period, serves as a guide to the organization. Programs and projects are identified in order to effectively channel resources to development programs and projects considered strategic in the overall

attainment of goals. Prioritization of programs and projects is determined done through the conduct of feasibility studies (Miclat, 2005). Budgeting is the costing of priority programs and projects. Implementation is actual carrying out of funded programs and projects by concerned offices and individuals of the organization. Programs and projects are monitored to find out if they are implemented according to plan. Otherwise, corrective measures should be readily instituted to put back the project on track. Results, in terms of outputs, after a year of implementation, and outcomes after about four to five years of implementation, in terms of effects and impacts, are evaluated. These outputs and outcomes discussed with managers and planners for decision-making and updating the plan (Ibid, 32).
EDUCATIONAL PLANNING MODELS

Bells Strategic Planning Model There are strategic planning models that apply to education. One of these models is that one developed by the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory in cooperation with the Oregon Education Coordinating Council. The purpose of the model is to increase both intra-system and inter-system planning effectiveness. The circular model (Figure 3) has eight major steps grouped into three phases and steps. The model separates the three phases of management activity as strategic planning, tactical planning, and control. The processes under strategic planning are identification of problems, definition of policy objectives, and assignment of institutional roles and resources. Tactical planning transforms policy objectives and general allocation of resources into selection of programs, identification of alternative strategies, and developing specific program designs for action. Action ensures that performance proceeds according to plans, as well as monitors and evaluates results. In the center of this circular model is the information system that takes care of all data and information gathered and used as feedback in decision-making and planning process (Bell et al., 1989).

INFORMATI ON SYSTEM

10

Vision # 1

Beliefs and Values

External Scanning

External Scanning

Critical Success Factors

Figure 3. Strategic Planning Model (Bell et al., 1989).

S Vision # 2 M W Needs Assessment Hermans Strategic Planning Model is? What should be? i O What s T Herman and Herman s (1994) developed a model that focuses on a school A i planning reference (Figure 4). The steps are grouped into two major n o Strategic Goals strategic planning andntactical planning. The planning areas and steps are: a l A. Strategic Planning y s 1. Vision # 1 Strategic Objectives i 2. a. Beliefs and values s

as the frame of areas, namely,

3. 4. 5. 6.

b. Environmental scanning; Internal and External c. Critical success factors Vision # 2 Decision Rules Achievable Mission statement Priority Affordable Strategic goals Selection Meaningful SWOT analysis 80% Success

B. Tactical Planning 7. Strategic objectives Develop 8. Decision rules and priority selection Action Plans - Brainstorming 9. Action plans - Force Field Analysis 10. Allocate resources and operate plans

- Cost Benefit - Select Best Alternative

11

Allocate Resources and Operate Plans

Figure 4. Strategic Planning Model (Herman and Herman, 1994) Under this model, the first step under strategic planning is the creation and consensus of a vision by school leaders and stakeholders of what should be for the school. The role of the

12

school is considered in the mega, macro and micro environments. With the information, the planners are able to situate where they are and core values and beliefs of school leaders and stakeholders are identified for eventual incorporation into the vision. Scanning the environment, internally and externally, is the next step. Generated data and information would provide the present state of the school and obtaining conditions, the environment would dictate which are facilitative and impediments in the attainment of the preferred ideal vision. The next concern is the identification of critical success factors. These factors are jointly identified by the school leaders and stakeholders and eventually retain only those that enhance the attainment of the desired future vision, while those that hinder are eliminated. With so much data and information, vision number two is arrived at and agreed upon finally by the planners. The final vision is then used as basis in the formulation of the mission statement and the strategic goal. Formulated mission and goal consider the major role of the school in the mega, macro, and micro environments. The final step under this phase is the conduct of the SWOT analysis. Data gathered earlier are laid out in two-by-two table to analytically determine which of these factors enhance or impede the attainment of the preferred ideal vision. Strengths and opportunities are further built upon and capitalized on while weaknesses and threats and remedied and eliminated. Once the strategic plan is completed, this is turned over to the tactical planners who will devise and design the specific operational plans (Miclat, 2005). In the tactical planning phase, the first step is the formulation of specific objectives for every goal that has-been framed. Prioritization of these-objectives is undertaken with the use of a commonly-agreed upon set of decision rules. Once the objectives are prioritized, the next step is the development of specific action plans. The plans are then subjected to testing or analysis to determine the best alternative strategies. The testing involves the use of brainstorming, force field analysis, cost-benefit, and cost-effectiveness analyses. The last step is the allocation of resources to the best alternative plans and strategies, implementing and monitoring them, and finally evaluating the results (Ibid). Kaufmans Strategic Planning Model Another strategic planning model applicable to education is the systems framework model (Kaufman et al., 2002). The model (Figure 5) has undergone extensive improvements during the last two decades. The strategic planning processes were initially presented in a systems analysis of six steps (Kaufman, 1972); the Organization Elements Model (OEM) (Kaufman, 1988); a systems framework of four major clusters of 13 steps (Kaufman and Herman, 1991); and finally an improved systems framework model consisting of three major clusters and 12 steps, as follows:

A. Scoping

13

1. 2. 3. 4.

Ideal vision Identify and select needs Define current mission Derive mission objective

B. Planning 5. Identify SWOT 6. Derive long and short-term mission 7. Derive strategic plan C. Implementation and Continuous Improvement 8. Derive tactical and operational plans 9. Make/buy/obtain resources 10. Implement 11. Continuous improvement/formative evaluation 12. Determine effectiveness and efficiency Revise/improve as required The model begins with the scoping phase. The first step under this phase is the identification of the preferred ideal vision in the mega, macro, and micro perspectives. Parallel to this activity is the identification and selection of needs. This step involves the identification of values and beliefs and data gathering on the internal organization and external environment. These are inputted in the continuous improvement of formulating the ideal vision. From the data, critical success factors are also determined to guide educational partners in the planning and thinking processes of the strategic planning phase. The framed ideal vision dictates the elements of the mission of the organization which commits to deliver and contribute to that vision. A mission is a broad description of purpose. Once the mission is framed, the objectives are formulated. Objectives should be based on the mission and the mission on the vision. The objectives state both where the organization is headed and the precise criteria for determining accomplishments (Miclat, p. 48). The conduct of SWOT analysis is the first step under the planning phase. On the bases of the ideal vision, mission, objectives and needs assessment, the analysis of identified strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities becomes the organizational barometer indicating the organizational and environmental factors that enhance or impede the attainment of specific objectives. Based on this information, long- and short-term missions (targets) are derived and the strategic plan developed through the conduct of function and system analyses. The results of these analyses are in the form of products designed to attain 14

the objectives. Scoping and planning phases fall under the domain of strategic planning. Once the strategic plans are completed, these are turned over to the tactical planners (Ibid.). The first step under tactical planning is the formulation of tactical and operational plans through the operation of a method-means analysis. The analysis identifies the possible ways and means for doing and undertaking the products, tasks or outputs. Once the products and the different means for doing them are completed, funds and resources are allocated. Tasks and products are then implemented. The ascertainment of successful plan implementation requires developing of structures within the organization, installing a management information system (MIS), and a monitoring system. After a short period of time, formative evaluation is undertaken to determine whether or not outputs approximated the stated objectives and mission. The conduct of summative evaluation determines the levels of efficiency and effectiveness of the outputs maturing into outcomes. Outputs and outcomes serve as inputs to revise if not improve the strategic and tactical planning process (Ibid., p.48). The model as presented in Figure 6 consists of nine major steps: 1. a. b. 2. a. b. c. d. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Preparation Organization and staffing Training Environmental scanning External environment Internal organization SWOT analysis Strategic planning framework Vision, mission, goal, objective and target setting Policy/strategy formulation Program/project identification Investment programming Budgeting Implementation and monitoring Evaluation and plan update

15

MICRO MACRO MEGA Ideal Vision

Identify and Select Needs

Define Current Mission

SCOPING

Derive Mission Objective

Identify SWOT Derive Long and Short-Term Missions Derive Strategic Plans PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT Derive Tactical and Operational Plans

Make/But/Obtain Resources

Revise/Improve As Required

Implement

Continuous Improvement Formative Evaluation Determine Effectiveness/ Efficiency

Figure 5. Strategic Planning Model (Kaufman et al., 2002)

16

OUTCOME Effect Impact

Evaluation Plan Update

OUTPUT

Organization and Staffing

Implementatio n Policy Strategy Formulation Program/ Project Identification

PROCESS

Environment Scanning

Vision

Investment Programming

Budgeting

Training

MISSION INTERNAL

Project Preparation

INPUT

GOALS

EXTERNAL

OBJECTIVES

S.W.O.T.

TARGETS

Figure 6. Strategic Planning Process Model (Miclat, 2005).

FRAMEWORK

17

LESSON 4 PERSPECTIVES IN STRATEGIC PLANNING If planners really aspire to formulate a realistic, achievable, responsive and effective strategic plan and to implement the plan, they have to possess down-board thinking, paradigm shift, and holistic and global orientation.
DOWN-BOARD THINKING

Down-board thinking is an important component of effective strategic planning. Like a chess grandmaster, a planner should think and decide not only on immediate things but he must look down-board and consider the future. Effective strategic planning creates scenarios and considers the consequences of these scenarios in the light of competition and the response of the environmental factors (Goodstein et al., 1993). This suits well Peter Druckers recommendation that if we cannot predict the future, we might as well create it.
PARADIGM SHIFT

In order to be able to craft a realistic, responsive, effective and achievable strategic plan, planners need a shift in paradigm. Paradigm is simply a set of ideas that are usually unwritten and that people have learned and embraced through education and experiences that defines the conventional methods about the rules of nature and life (Cali, 1993). A paradigm acts as a mental filter or screen that delimits the way people think about things by setting up boundary conditions that are often perceived rather than real. Paradigm shift requires disassemblying our old and conventional ways of seeing, doing, thinking and assessing a thing because they no longer apply with reality and the present. The new paradigm calls for a broad, flexible, eclectic, creative and futuristic mental framework (Miclat, 2005). We must now change and enlarge our educational paradigm from teaching to learning, from rote mastery to process learning and dynamic citizenship, from input-oriented to output-oriented curriculum development. We have to be radical, if needed, and future shock-free to ascertain the success of our products and graduates both in school and in the real world of life. PLANNING ORIENTATION There are three types of orientation in strategic planning, namely: systems, mega-level, and outside-in. Systems Approach A system is an organized whole composed of two or more interdependent parts or subsystems and delineated by identifiable boundaries from its environmental suprasystem (Kast and Rosenzweig, 1990). The elements of a systems are inputs, conversion process, 18

outputs, and outcomes. Miclat (1998) presents a system framework and its major elements in the context of a university in Figure 7. The inputs are demands, mandate, and resources in the form of manpower, funds, materials, equipment, and facilities. The conversion processes consists of teaching-learning process both formal and informal, co-curricular activities in and out of the institution, short-term training interventions, and implementation of research and economic development projects. The outputs in quantitative terms are number of graduates and trainees, number of researches completed, number of mature technologies developed, and amount of funds generated and sourced. In qualitative terms, the outputs are manifest competence of graduates and trainees, number of researches published, number of mature technologies commercialized and income generated. Outcome is divided into effect and impact. Effect is the immediate consequences of program outputs (Mathur and Inayatullah, 1998), like licensure board examination performance, number of employed graduates and trainees, international and national research awards garnered, and mature technologies adopted. On the other hand, impact is change in the standard of living of the target/partner groups or within the target area emanating from the program (Ibid.). A period of four years or more is necessary for the effect to gestate into an impact. The impacts are self-reliance, selfsufficiency, social responsibility, economic independence and political dynamism, and better quality of life. The use of systems approach to strategic planning will provide the managers and planners a holistic and integrated view which can expand into a global perspective should the university attain some degree of regional and international recognition.

19

INPUTS

CONVERSION PROCESS

OUTPUTS

OUTCOMES Effects/Impact

Demands Mandate Resources Manpower Funds Materials Physical Others

Teaching-learning Co-curri activities Research execution Training programs Tech application Innovative management systems Physical plan implementation

Quantitative number of graduates, trainees and research Qualitative manifest competence researches published technologies commercialized

Board exams Employed graduates/ trainees Research awards Self-reliance Self-sufficiency Citizenship Better quality of life

Internal Organization External Environment

Feedback

Figure 7. A Systems Planning Framework of a University (Miclat, Jr., 1998)

Mega-Level Environment There are three planning levels: mega-level, macro-level and micro-level. Kaufman, et al (2002) equated mega-level to the society, macro-level to the educational system, and the micro-level to the individual learner, teacher or group. They contend that mega-level planning views the society and the clients as the basis for everything the education system uses, does, and delivers. In the macro-level, planning is primarily concerned with the organization but without any substantial commitment to both client and society. In microlevel, planning is concerned only with individual or group jobs and tasks. Miclat (2005) adopted a different perspective in the use of mega, macro, and micro concepts. His planning reference is the organization like a university and looks on its role in a different level of planning environment. The levels of planning environment vary depending on the highest level of planning environment one adopts. But all three are used in one planning activity. For example, if society is the highest level of planning environment, then mega is used for society, macro for the region and micro for the province, city or town. In a higher level of planning environment, say the world, the result would be: mega-global, macro-Philippine society, and micro-region say the Central Luzon. Lowering from the level of environment, the pairings will be: mega-region, macroprovince, and micro-district or town. If the society as a whole is chosen as the mega level of planning environment, the question is: What is it that society needs that the university will produce and deliver that gives the greatest payoffs to society? At the macro level, the question shall be: What is it that the university produces or delivers that the region needs? For the micro level, the question is: 20

What does the university needs to produce or deliver what the province needs? In this context, a university is viewed as an organization that has a specific environment. It has to respond to that environment to maintain a dynamic state. A university is an instrument of the State and of society human resource development in terms of producing highly educated professionals and skilled manpower. This manpower becomes a contributing citizen of society especially in the place where he resides (Ibid.). Outside-In Planning If one plans for society as the mega-level of planning environment, then an alternative perspective an enlarged perspective is gained. Kaufman and associates (2002) claim that planning in this way is as if one were looking into the organization from the outside from the vantage point of society back into the organization and its results and efforts. Outside-in planning is proactive. It is a frame of reference that continuously challenges the status quo while identifying possible scenarios and new opportunities that bring about positive change and growth to society.

Activity
What similarities and/or differences, if any, did you observe among the 3 educational planning models discussed in this module? Of these planning models, which one would best answer the need for strategic planning in your school? Explain. Suggested Time Frame: Two Weeks

21