Strategic Planning in Schools in Kenya: Possibilities and Challenges

Abstract

This article discusses a study that sought to find out how two secondary schools in Kenya have engaged in strategic planning. It aimed to explore the factors that have facilitated some schools to successfully engage in this process, while others fail. The study employed a qualitative multiple case design and engaged 47 participants. Data was collected through interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis. Findings revealed that a number of factors either facilitated or hindered the study schools' engagement in strategic planning: knowledge and awareness of strategic planning, leadership styles, financial resources, training and professional support. Further, school leaders experienced challenges with the strategic planning process, thereby raising the question of the effectiveness of strategic planning as a planning and management tool in the context of study. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the study's findings for the successful implementation of strategic planning in schools.

Full text

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014 17
Strategic Planning in Schools in Kenya:
Possibilities and Challenges
Christine N Wanjala and Jane F A Rarieya
Abstract: This article discusses a study that sought to nd out how two secondary schools in Kenya have
engaged in strategic planning. It aimed to explore the factors that have facilitated some schools to successfully
engage in this process, while others fail. The study employed a qualitative multiple case design and engaged
47 participants. Data was collected through interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis.
Findings revealed that a number of factors either facilitated or hindered the study schools’ engagement in
strategic planning: knowledge and awareness of strategic planning, leadership styles, nancial resources,
training and professional support. Further, school leaders experienced challenges with the strategic planning
process, thereby raising the question of the eectiveness of strategic planning as a planning and management
tool in the context of study. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the study’s ndings for the
successful implementation of strategic planning in schools.
Introduction
A strategic approach to management in general, and strategic planning in particular, has gained
prominence in education in the recent past in Kenya (Republic of Kenya 2005a, 2005b, 2006). It
has increasingly gained status as a management tool because of its ability to contribute to the
development of sustainable educational institutions (Bell 2002). The call for ‘Education for All’ as
well as technological advancements and non-stable economies have clearly threatened the stability
of educational institutions in developing contexts (UNESCO 2010). It has, therefore, become
imperative that schools within such contexts reform their operations to adapt to the multiple
changes and turbulent educational environment and to eectively respond to the aforementioned
educational exigencies. Strategic planning has been identied as a valuable framework for eective
implementation of school reforms and empowers schools to eectively respond to their needs
(Fullan 2004; Gamage 2006; Xaba 2006; Steyn &Wolhuter 2010). Perhaps this is because strategic
planning enhances a paradigm shift from short-term planning approaches that are crisis-driven
to broader strategic processes essential for sustainability (Davies 2002). The data-based decision-
making that is inherent to strategic planning enables a holistic appraisal of a school’s strengths and
weaknesses (Davies & Davies 2006; Cheng 2008).
Furthermore, research on change management advocates for strategic planning as a viable process
to lead school reforms and change the way people work (Fullan 2004), as its approach is pegged
on the involvement of the whole school community. Thus the process provides an inclusive way
for school planning, which is vital for soliciting higher commitment to the implementation of

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014
18
change (Fullan 2004; Lane, Bishop & Wison-Jones 2005). This is further facilitated by the ample
forums for the communication among stakeholders that is necessary for strategic planning (Fullan,
Hill & Crevola 2006). Hence, it has the potential to enhance collaborative and collegial working
relationships among school community members.
Despite the foregoing identied strengths of strategic planning, it is relatively new in developing
contexts, including Kenya, and is therefore still a challenge to many school stakeholders. Mbugua
and Rarieya (2014) arm that not all schools in Kenya have embraced strategic planning fully,
despite a ministerial directive. They cite cases of some schools hiring consultants to make
strategic plans for them and of others borrowing and adopting strategic plans from other schools,
irrespective of variation in contextual needs. This raises questions about schools’ capacity and
capability to successfully engage in strategic planning processes (Davies 2004; Xaba 2006; Mulkeen
2007; Onguko, Abdalla & Webber 2008).
Secondary School Leadership in the Kenyan Context
Secondary schools in Kenya form the nal cycle of basic education after early childhood and
primary education. The schools also form the transition period to higher education.
Secondary schools are managed by two legal bodies – the board of governors (BOG) and the parent
teacher association (PTA) – with the principal as the secretary to both. The core function of the BOG
is to manage the school (Republic of Kenya 1980), while the PTA’s core function is to respond to
the needs of the school by raising funds to facilitate school projects (Republic of Kenya 1999a). The
latter may include engaging parental support.
The school leadership structure in Kenyan schools is hierarchical, with the principal at the top,
then the deputy principal, the director of studies, head of departments, teachers, down to students.
According to the Head Teachers’ Manual (Republic of Kenya 1999b), the principal is responsible for
all planning, organising, directing, controlling, stang, innovating, coordinating and motivating,
and for actualising the educational goals and objectives of the institution and the country. In
executing these duties, the principal delegates some responsibilities to the deputy principal and
other teachers holding various positions in the school, as demanded by the situation at hand.
However, the principal is held accountable for everything in the school. Therefore, the principal
remains the key decision-maker and determinant of the system of planning in the school.
The prevalent hierarchical and bureaucratic leadership practice has had an eect on the way
planning has been done in Kenyan schools. It could also be part of the reason why schools nd
engaging in strategic planning dicult. Strategic planning that is viewed as collaborative and all
encompassing for all stakeholders (Eacott 2011) is a challenge in this particular context. Centralised
line-management and demarcated positions of power present a challenge to strategic planning
processes that call for a more attened and relationship-driven leadership which aims to develop
schools as more uid organisations (Davies & Davies 2010).
Strategic Planning in Schools
This section gives a brief overview of strategic planning in schools, outlining its purpose, likely
benets, challenges and limitations.
Literature on strategic planning in schools gives dierent perspectives on its success. Research
points out that running a school is challenging, stressful, dicult and time-consuming (Leithwood
& Jantzi 2005; Levine 2005). It appears that most of the school leader ’s time is spent responding
to government requirements and less on educational leadership (Onguko et al. 2008). This often

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014 19
limits the principals’ capacity to design strategies for school improvement (ibid). However, with
the current competitive and demanding educational climate, principals cannot neglect to pay
attention to accountability requirements of parents and the government. Most governments, the
Kenyan included, have therefore established policies that require schools to undertake thoughtful,
comprehensive strategic planning aimed at setting key strategies for sustainable improvement
and determination of resource priorities (UNESCO 2010). Nevertheless, strategic planning goes
beyond a school simply demonstrating that it complies by developing a strategic plan. It should be
a declaration of a school’s dedication to ongoing improvement.
A number of studies have identied strategic planning as a tool to guide schools’ improvement
initiatives in the future (Fullan 2004; Steyn & Wolhuter 2010; Quong & Walker 2010). For example,
Steyn & Wolhuter state that strategic planning helps in a school’s self-study and evaluation, whereby
areas of strengths and future challenges are identied and planned for. Eacott (2011), on the other
hand, arms that strategic planning can improve school community relationships, since it is a
useful tool for communication across traditional boundaries in the school. In a nutshell, strategic
planning sets the courses and directions for all development and growth within the school. This is
because a strategic plan is the schools’ avowal to the community of its goals, values and intents for
achievements in the next ve to ten years.
Despite the myriad benets aforementioned, research indicates that strategic planning is still a
challenge in schools. Miech (1995), for instance, points out that strategic planning originated in the
business environment where the focus lay on relatively detached groups of people who are experts
in strategy development and implementation; in education, however, it takes a political dimension.
This is because the formulation of strategies in education must appeal to diverse interests and
involve the distribution of power and increased community involvement. Such a dimension,
however, is demanding to the leader in terms of creating a coordinated focus and providing expert
knowledge. Conley (1993) argues that strategic planning in schools faces challenges because a
number of school leaders lack knowledge of the strategic planning processes as well as of how to
convert strategic plans into action plans for eective implementation.
Conley further suggests that most stakeholders have limited knowledge of the following: how to
carry out planning, how best to conduct the planning process, how best to implement the process,
how to come up with the best strategies, how to identify strategies that are best suited to their
contexts, and how best to apply strategic planning to improve all-round performance in students’
achievement. He further argues that strategic planning does not provide the nancial resource
decit that accrues from mapping out strategies required for improvement, thereby making
implementation a challenge. This is because although strategic planning will lay out the strategic
intent of the school as well as the strategies necessary for achieving it, the planning does not provide
the requisite nancial resources to achieve the intent; the planning often goes beyond the current
nancial resource status of schools. The argument above resonates with that of Mintzberg (1994)
that the act of creating strategy is an extremely complex process demanding multifaceted cognitive
and social skills that many leaders lack. Indeed, strategic planning focuses on the formulation
of strategies whose successful implementation habitually rests upon people who often are not
involved in making the plans (ibid).
Some researchers argue that some plans developed by schools are limited because they concentrate
on material resources for the school, such as buses and buildings, ignoring teaching and learning
(Reeves 2008; Rumelt 2011). Evans (2007) further argues that the purpose of strategic planning is to
secure competitive advantage.

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014
20
However, great emphasis has been put on the results of paper and pencil tests, thus ignoring the goal
of developing an all-round student. Moreover, some strategic plans reect ineective programmes
to foster, supervise and evaluate growth in teacher performance and professional development
(Baloglu, Karadag & Karaman 2008), yet this area is imperative in improving classroom practice
and teaching methodology, which in turn improves student achievement.
Additionally, Schmoker (2004) opines that some schools set impossible goals and that the monitoring
and evaluation of the strategies is not well spelled out. Reeves (2008) suggests that school leaders
need guidance to engage in strategic planning processes that lead to improved student results.
In his analysis of hundreds of strategic plans from schools in the USA, he found that school
leadership’s high expectations and leadership practices contributed to successful planning and
hence student achievement. To facilitate this, Codrington (2004) identies four factors that aect
school leaders’ adoption of strategic planning: personal disposition of the school leader, the degree
to which the school is facing external pressure, how much the school leaders think they know
and their condence in the knowledge they do have, and the extent to which they could share
the information with sta to convert strategies into actions. He concludes that leaders’ knowledge
of change management and the eect of changes on school-level processes on pupil outcomes is
limited. As a result, leaders face challenges in translating the strategies into achieving improved
student learning.
On the whole, strategic planning in schools still poses a challenge and therefore a leader’s role in
creating a strategic mindset and culture in the school is critical to its success (Davies, 2005). Jasparro
(2006) argues that school principals are best placed to shape the conditions of the schools that are
necessary for successful engagement in strategic planning because of their leadership position.
Principals have the task of developing shared goals, establishing collaborative work structures and
climate, and developing procedures for monitoring results (ibid). Certainly, what principals should
do specically to manage strategic planning processes and the change that comes with them at the
school level is a complex aair for which they often have little preparation (Fullan 2007).
Methodology
This paper presents the ndings of a study that sought to explore how two secondary schools in
Kenya engaged in strategic planning. The two schools, Spinna and Kanna (pseudonyms), were
identied as research sites because they are known to have engaged in this process, albeit with
diering results. According to the local education oce, at the time of the study one school was
viewed as having successfully engaged in strategic planning and the other as struggling with the
process.
The study employed a qualitative multiple case design. Data was collected through interviews,
focus group discussions (FCDs) and document analysis. The study engaged 47 participants
considered key school stakeholders, including members of the schools’ BOGs and PTAs, the
schools’ principals, teachers, parents and students. The purpose was not to generalise ndings, but
to obtain relevant and useful information from a wide spectrum of stakeholders on the possibilities
and challenges for school strategic planning in the Kenyan context. Indeed, the limited focus was
intended to provide an in-depth understanding of the schools’ experiences and to draw lessons
in order to inform on the possibilities to be strengthened and the challenges to be mitigated for
successful strategic planning in Kenyan schools.

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014 21
Facilitators of Strategic Planning
This section presents the factors that facilitated or hindered strategic planning in the study schools.
The study established that the concept of strategic planning was not clear to some leaders and
stakeholders in the study schools, and this in turn aected their engagement with it. Participants
in both schools acknowledged that strategic planning was a new concept to them. For example, a
BOG member in Spinna School stated that:
It [strategic planning] took us a long time, and you know when we started we didn’t know
what it was … because we had never heard of one. The principal explained to us what it
is. (Interview, 17 May 2012)
This school’s proactive principal and supportive BOG organised a capacity-building workshop in
which most of the stakeholders were able to gain insights into what strategic planning entailed.
One teacher armed that:
We were able to do it easily because of the board we have. The board decided we cannot
work until we have identied what we want to achieve. BOG members nanced the whole
process. We had somebody who facilitated a workshop...a specialist in that area. His work
was to lead us through what is involved. So he gave us what it is all about, after which we
were engaged in discussions, and that is how we came up with the plan. (Interview, 16
May 2012)
The quote above arms that Spinna School engaged in strategic planning from an informed point.
As a result, the whole process from initiation to implementation seemed smooth, as evidenced by
the iterative and recursive communication relationship documented in reviews and minutes of its
BOG and sta meetings. The school leadership acknowledged that engaging in strategic planning
meant changing their way of working and making decisions based on what the deputy described
as ‘factual information’. The school’s decision to engage in strategic planning was further driven by
the school’s objective as armed by the deputy:
We wanted it to be clear to us what are we doing... also invite fruitful suggestions or
criticism. So it was to majorly invite communication and a common view on arriving at
some of the objectives of the school. (Interview, 14 May 2012)
Therefore, the strategic planning process involved collaborative capacity and consensus building by
engaging school community members at all levels in initiation workshops and the implementation
process. Evidently, Spinna School viewed strategic planning as a guide or tool for improvement, as
asserted by the principal who said that ‘everybody is cornered by what was agreed. At the end of
the day it improved the eciency of the school.’ The approach could possibly explain the school’s
successful engagement in strategic planning.
In contrast, school leaders in Kanna viewed strategic planning as an imposed external requirement.
The principal felt compelled to develop the strategic plan to comply with administrative instruction.
He stated:
Actually our seniors expect us to have strategic plans for our schools but they have never
taken trouble to train us on how to come up with it. For us we just have the priorities, we
seek funding, to us we call that strategic planning because nobody has bothered to tell us,
‘actually these are the components of strategic plans and this is how it is done.’ So, we are
just struggling to nd our way. In fact, from one school to another, the strategic plans dier
as long as there is a plan at least so that when they [school inspectors] come to inspect, you
are safe. (Interview, 28 May 2012)

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014
22
The principal’s perspective above exposes pitfalls in the planning process in this school. The school
developed what seemed like a six-year development plan that could not be considered strategic
as it did not indicate how the school would be positioned in six years’ time in terms of the quality
of education they would be oering or in comparison to other schools in the district. The strategic
plan in particular only listed a few infrastructural projects the school would wish to come up with
in a period of six years. Research suggests that strategic processes that require individual and
organisational reections on how the future of the institution would look like are key to strategic
planning (Bryson 2004; Davies 2004). The plan missed out on key processes of strategic planning
– conceptualisation, engaging people, articulating and implementing the strategy, and monitoring
and evaluation – as advocated by several authors (Tsiakkiros & Pashiardis 2002; Lane et al. 2005;
Jasparro 2006; Young 2009; Davies & Davies 2010).
The school developed a document to please inspectors instead of developing the capacity of
stakeholders so as to foster the whole school’s understanding of its vision, mission and strategies
to enable the latter to achieve their future goals (Davies 2002). The leaders’ inadequate capacity to
seek alternative sources of knowledge similar to those in Spinna School could be a sign of lack of
commitment to strategic planning in the school (Xaba 2006). It emerged that the school developed
a plan that was void of strategic intents, strategic thinking and strategic conversations, which are
core to successful strategic planning (Davies, 2006; Bryson 2011).
The ndings further indicate that strategic planning had not been embraced fully in schools. School
leaders viewed strategic planning as an external ministerial policy that must be adhered to by
schools, as expressed by the Kanna School principal above. Indeed, the two schools engaged in
strategic planning to full a policy requirement by the Ministry of Education. However, the point of
departure between Spinna and Kanna in their engagement in strategic planning is what the schools
wanted to achieve from these processes. Participants’ views suggested that Spinna School had
engaged in strategic planning so as to improve students’ academic performance and sta working
relationships. The deputy principal, for instance, armed that:
The rst challenge we had was academic performance...our eorts got lost. We put in
too much, we got too little... initially there seemed to be no direction. Students were just
learning but really without aiming at anything. So when they were taken through the
strategic plan especially in areas which aect their performance, they started aiming at
something...First, we had the academic task force that went through the plan to nd out
areas that aect academics, and those areas were articulated during the get together of the
BOG, PTA and sta. (Interview, 14 May 2012)
A participant teacher also pointed out:
In the past, the BOG would work as if it is a dierent body of its own. It would be rare
for teaching sta to interact with the BOG unless on discipline. But because of strategic
planning, the BOG can now sit at the same table with teachers. So that you are now
listening to each other and you are appreciating each other’s input unlike in the past. (FGD,
21 May 2012)
These views signify that leaders in Spinna embraced change brought about by the policy and
committed to its implementation. As previously mentioned, Spinna’s engagement in strategic
planning was driven by a desire for change in the school culture and aspirations for academic
improvement. Spinna’s rationale resonates with research that points out that the driving force for
school improvement should be the desire to enhance quality, eectiveness and eciency in the
delivery of educational services (Hopkins 2005; Fullan 2008). Further, Gamage (2006) and Davies

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014 23
(2004) are of the view that the change in culture and improvement ought to be understood within
the context of the schools.
Conversely, Kanna School engaged in strategic planning to avoid trouble with school inspectors, as
pointed out by the principal: ‘[We] have strategic plans there just for the sake of inspectors not for
the good of the school.’ Subsequently, the school developed the strategic plan just to a full policy
requirements. Conrming the above view, the deputy principal said: ‘It is mainly because the
ministry had said schools must have strategic plans. I doubt if it really came up that it was genuine
that we want to have a strategic plan.’ We attribute Kanna’s indierent approach to strategic
planning to how the initiative was introduced in the school. Anderson and Wenderoth (2007)
contend that when changing people, you start from where they are and work to move them along
to the new changed state. The lack of understanding concerning processes and the importance of
strategic planning made it dicult for Kanna School to embrace it fully (Conley 1993).
Moreover, the ndings indicate that the style of leadership in both schools inuenced the schools’
engagement with strategic planning. For instance, participants at Spinna School described the
leadership approach of their school principal and the BOG as being inclusive and participatory, as
was evidenced by the manner in which responsibilities were distributed to all stakeholders during
the strategic planning process. A participant teacher explained:
We were able to do it easily because of the board and principal we had. Strategic planning
needs somebody who can say ‘ok let us move’; is ready to lead by example... give support,
show concern and push the students, teachers and workers. (Interview, 16 May 2012)
Another teacher conrmed the above:
I see all the stakeholders working as a unit....stakeholders accept each other; that we are
working towards the same goal and we need to appreciate the part being played by each
of us. (FGD, 21 May 2012)
It emerged that the leaders in this school built teamwork and trusting relationships among the
school community members, thus allowing the free sharing of ideas.
On the other hand, the leadership style in Kanna may have hindered the school from successfully
engaging in strategic planning. The study established that leadership in the school was bureaucratic,
centralised and isolating. Suggesting that the environment in the school did not encourage the
sharing of ideas, the deputy principal stated:
It is very odd to ask [the school principal] ‘is that in the strategic plan?’ It is not easy to
go and tell him [the principal], ‘can we look at the strategic plan and see what we are
supposed to do?’ He may look at it as undermining...what teachers believe is that strategic
planning is something for the deputy and the principal. (Interview, 29 May 2012)
The principal alone seemed to direct, coordinate and make decisions concerning the initiation and
implementation of strategic planning. The rest of the school community’s members had no choice
but to comply, as indicated by a participant teacher:
There is too much centralisation; decision-making is done from the central area and we
are only informed if the school has taken a decision. And if you are part of this school,
you need to support it... So mostly members do things in darkness... Nobody knows what
tomorrow holds. We dare not raise a nger to ask because of fear of unknown of what
might happen. (FGD, 6 June 2012)
The poor working relationships in Kanna School failed to empower the school community members
to establish strategies that would drive the school towards achieving its goals and improving student

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014
24
performance (Leithwood & Janta 2005). Clearly, the leadership practised at Kanna School was not
favourable for strategic planning because it lacked the capacity to eectively communicate drive
and passion for the school’s vision (Anderson & Wendroth 2007). Studies show that the complexity
of strategic planning requires eective leadership that can motivate stakeholders to accomplish
the required tasks associated with it (Quong & Walker 2010; Ugboro, Obeng, & Spann 2011). The
process requires strategic leadership, which calls for leaders to forfeit reactive and conservative
leadership approaches and instead develop reective, visionary and innovative thinking among
all stakeholders (Quong & Walker 2010). It appeared that there was a lack of a shared purpose
among stakeholders at Kanna School making it dicult for them to sit together and plan to achieve
a common goal for the school.
Moreover, the ndings indicate that nancial resources play an important role in ensuring the
achievement of developed strategic plans. Sources of funding for the two schools were limited,
not guaranteed, and externally and centrally controlled by the state’s Ministry of Education. As
a result, the principals found it dicult to predict how much the school would receive from the
Ministry and how best it could be utilised. Consequently, the schools depended on well-wishers
and politicians to boost their nancial kitties. In Spinna School, the principal identied support
from the Free Secondary School Kitty1 and constituency development fund2 as having facilitated
the implementation of their strategic plan. However, members of the school deemed these sources
of funding as inadequate to meet the developmental needs of the school. For example, the BOG
member said:
The major problem we face is lack of nance…the community is not one of the richest
around. Therefore when you have an idea to implement it becomes dicult … nances are
very hard to come by. (Interview, 17 May 2012)
The board was concerned that the period that had been set aside for the implementation of the
strategic plan was fast elapsing, yet most of the planned projects had not been implemented.
Similarly, at Kanna School, unavailability of nancial resources was widely cited as the major
reason for failing to implement the strategic plan. Further, leaders explained that lack of funding
caused projects to stall. Several participants attested to this:
In the end it zeroes down to funding, which is a challenge. We are working under free
secondary education. However, what our community does not understand is that what
the government is doing is to subsidise tuition but other things are to be met by parents.
(Interview, BOG 31May, 2012)
Funding … is very low, that is why we can’t move. Continuing with construction is dicult
because of our low income. Most parents are peasants [who are engaged] in small petty
economic activities. (FGD, parent, 7 June 2012).
We have structures [which have] stalled due to lack of funds. This is because our parents
the manner in which they pay [fees] is not the best. They are too slow. So activities planned
for are not being implemented (Interview, PTA, 30 May 2012)
Eventually, Kanna resorted to a crisis management operating mode (Pashiardis, 2007) in which one
responds to mandates and needs only when it is absolutely necessary. The school only concentrated
on accomplishing the short-term goals as opportunities presented themselves, foregoing the long-
term future of the institution. Justifying this, the deputy principal commented:
1 Money set aside to fund students’ tuition fee/cost in secondary schools.
2 Money set aside to fund various developmental projects at constituency level. Part of the money is used to
oset fees for poorer students in schools.

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014 25
Most of the projects are outside our vote-heads, require donors. Going out to get them
is not easy. So in most cases we have to be opportunistic. For example, someone came in
and wanted to put up a multipurpose hall...we can’t tell him nish the building under
construction...we let him go ahead. (Interview, 29 May, 2012)
Finally, prior capacity-building for strategic planning in schools was insucient to enable school
leaders to provide leadership for these processes. It was established that the Ministry of Education
made attempts to provide training in strategic planning through one-week seminars to school
leaders. In addition, through the Kenya Education Management Institute (KEMI), an institution
that provides professional development services to educational leaders, the Ministry of Education
is oering a distance learning diploma programme in education management. The course, which
comprises strategic planning, is available to secondary school principals. The principal and her
deputy at Spinna School cited this professional development support as having enabled them to
gain insight into the processes of strategic planning.
However, the two leaders together, with their counterparts in Kanna, expressed dissatisfaction
with the short duration and the theory-oriented seminars. They also thought that the seminars and
courses should have been available when strategic planning was rolled out in schools, and not later.
Further, the principals in both schools described the diploma programme as exam oriented, too
theoretical and technical for them to understand on their own. For example, they shared:
The time is short, like many times you go for a Saturday and Sunday class. I don’t think the
time is sucient but most of the things we do on our own... we are given books, we read
so we just share. (Interview, Spinna, 14 May 2012)
We went to KEMI for three weeks before posting... wish it was a bit longer because they
were tackling many things together for that short period. It was just lectures... no practical.
(Interview, Kanna, 28 May 2012)
Teachers in the study also expressed concern that the training oered is discriminatory since it only
concentrated on building the capacity of school principals, leaving out middle managers such as
deputies, heads of department and teachers in general. As one of the participant teachers said:
Strategic planning should be free information to all teachers. Now if they only consider
Principals, what about Deputies, HODs and all these other teachers? KEMI is not reaching
everybody since it depends on the nancial state of the school or individual … (FGD, 21
May 2012)
Discussion of the Implications for Successful Strategic Planning
The ndings from the study have implications for the successful implementation of strategic
planning in schools in Kenya and in other similar contexts.
First, it is evident that knowledge of the concept of strategic planning, the nature of its processes
and the requisite skills to plan in this manner is essential. In the study, members of both schools
had limited understanding of what strategic planning entailed. Davies (2006) asserts that the actual
strategic planning phase is technical and demands training in skills and know-how to successfully
carry out the process. Certainly, education authorities need to play a key role in building the
capacity of school leaders to eectively implement reforms they desire. In essence, these reforms,
though usually well-intended, are poorly implemented, resulting in more chaos in schools (Xaba
2006).

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014
26
In the study schools, professional development that was meant to enhance the capacity of school
leaders to plan strategically seemed to be late and sporadic. Perhaps a more carefully considered
professional development programme prior to the implementation of the reform and an on-going
programme would have been more helpful to the school leaders. Eacott (2011) takes a swipe at the
retrospective approach to building leadership capacity, pointing out that it is only in the eld of
education that practice precedes theory. Instead, he advocates country-wide capacity-building for
all those involved in the process before any initiative is rolled out to schools. In agreement, Jasparro
(2006) asserts that since strategic planning requires involvement of all stakeholders, building
capacity at district and school levels is imperative for the success of these processes. Unfortunately,
the sporadic and inconsistent training support provided in Kenya seems to have been ineective.
The approach used resonates with what Xaba (2006) describes as a ‘cascading model’ that was
employed in implementing strategic planning in schools in South Africa. Xaba criticises this type
of training, where senior education managers and educators were equipped with skills, and were
then subsequently expected to pass the same information on to the rest of the school community
members. He argues that such an approach is prescriptive and mechanical because it describes
how to make strategic plans instead of bringing about structural and cultural adjustments that are
imperative for meaningful change to occur in schools. Further, this model of training is ineective
because, in most cases, the subsequent training at the school level is never realised. This was evident
in Kanna, where the deputy principal pointed out:
Most of the seminars are out there where the Ministry of Education pass knowledge to
school administration on strategic planning; deputies should be part of them. The principal
can come back and keep quiet on what the Ministry is insisting on. (Interview, 29 May 2012)
In addition, the training support provided by the Ministry of Education to schools is limited and
ineective because accessibility for all is not guaranteed. This partly explains Kanna’s failure to
implement strategic planning processes. From the study, leaders expressed dissatisfaction with
the short duration and theory-oriented seminars. Fiddler (1996) argues that the overriding aim of
strategic planning in schools is to encourage and stimulate schools to take responsibility for their
own improvement, and therefore school leaders need to be prepared to undertake the process.
Indeed, Xaba (2006) associates schools’ failure to successfully engage in strategic planning with
leaders’ inadequate knowledge of the processes. In fact, learning should be the starting point
for schools eectively engaging in strategic planning. However, it is important that the training
involves all stakeholders; training leaders alone is not enough since school improvement depends
on the understanding of all (Eacott, 2011). Therefore, it is imperative to create awareness and
pressure for a whole-school learning approach and to turn schools into networking and learning
organisations (Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski & Flowers 2005; Bryson, Anderson & Alston, 2011). It is
vital therefore to review and leverage the teachers’ and schools leaders’ professional development
programmes to be more inclusive of leaders’ needs, which can be diverse because of their levels of
knowledge and experience of leadership.
The study underscores the leadership capabilities of those identied to lead schools. It demonstrates
that strategic planning was successful in Spinna School, where the school principal appeared
to be egalitarian and inclusive in her leadership approach. According to Keough & Shahanan
(2008), the leader is the vision bearer who conceptualises, visualises and formulates strategy for
the school. Davies & Davies (2010) further contend that the school leadership should reect and
develop mental images of where the school aspires to go. However, Codrington (2004) suggests
that the knowledge and condence of school leaders to lead and implement strategic planning
processes is limited. As a result, principals face challenges in passing on what they have learned

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014 27
in seminars to sta to aid in strategically planning for the school (ibid). Conley (1993) arms that
most stakeholders not only do not understand the processes of strategic planning, but also how
best to apply this process to improve all-round performance in students’ achievement. From the
study, it was evident that inappropriate leadership styles and dispositions that seek to maintain
the status quo and control people hindered Kanna School from successfully engaging in strategic
planning. Principals therefore require capacity-building of eective leadership approaches that call
for open-mindedness, exibility and willingness to learn and share ideas with other stakeholders.
Indeed, this mirror current theories of leadership that recommend distributive, participatory and
inquiry-oriented leadership that seeks to turn schools into learning communities.
Finally, a limited budget for schools continues to present a challenge to school improvement.
While at Spinna School, the school management sought alternate nancial resources to aid them in
meeting their school goals; those at Kanna appeared to be overwhelmed by this need and grabbed
blindly at opportunities that presented themselves to them. This seems to suggest a need for school
leaders who can think of and source nancial resources creatively. The literature points out the
importance of prioritising and eciently utilising available resources to meet institutional needs
(Davies & Davies 2006; Snyder, Acker-Loceron & Snyder 2008; Bryson 2011). Hayward’s, (2008)
study on the challenges of strategic planning in higher education in developing countries suggests
that institutions in these contexts nd it challenging to engage in the process because of two reasons:
limited nancial resources and high competition for the scarce resources available. Lewin’s (2008)
report, although agreeing with Hayward’s view, associates the nancial challenge facing planning
in schools to the inability of the Ministry of Education to increase capitation to secondary schools
in tandem with increased enrolment resulting from free primary education. Contrasting studies
attribute the challenge of nancing in secondary schools to poor governance and management
of the available resources (Mulkeen 2007; Rarieya 2007; Onguko et al. 2008; World Bank 2008).
These studies indicate that principals are ill-equipped with skills to eectively execute leadership
and managerial duties, including budgeting, planning, and prioritising to eectively utilise the
available resources. The latter was evident in Kanna, where mushroomed projects stalled, probably
because the leaders lacked capacity in strategic thinking skills to help them prioritise the school’s
needs. This calls for a review of the process of selection and preparation of school leaders, especially
with regard to nancial management. School leaders also need to be provided with continuous
practical professional development in creative thinking, innovativeness and resource mobilisation
(Mulkeen 2007; World Bank 2008).
Conclusion
This paper ’s discourse on strategic planning in two schools in Kenya is evidence of the myriad
challenges that strategic planning in schools in the country still faces. The study identied factors
that have facilitated or hindered schools’ engagement in strategic planning and which all originate
from both within and outside the schools. The study also clearly demonstrates two important things.
First, leadership is pivotal to the successful implementation of strategic planning. Second, due to
contextual challenges presented to schools in Kenya, a more creative and innovative approach to
strategic planning needs to be adopted by the country’s schools.
References
Anderson, G. & Wenderoth, A. (2007), Facilitating Change: Reections on Six Years of Education Development
Programming in Challenging Environments (Montreal: Universalia Management Group).

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014
28
Baloghu, N., Karadog, E., & Karaman, H. (2008), The Strategic Planning Attitude Scale: A Study of Exploratory
and Conrmatory Factor Analyses, Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 8(2): 429–437.
Bell, L. (2002), Strategic Planning and School Management: Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing?, Journal
of Educational Administration 40(5): 407–424.
Bryson, J.M. (2004), Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Prot Organizations, 3rd edition (San Francisco: Jossey.
Bass).
Bryson, J.M. (2011), Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Prot Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and
Sustaining Organizational Achievement (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Bryson, J.M., Anderson, S.R., & Alston, F.K. (2011), Implementing and Sustaining your Strategic Plan: A Workbook for
Public and Non-Prot Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
Chang, G. (2008), Strategic Planning in Education: Some Concepts and Methods, UNESCO Working Report (Paris:
International Institute for Educational Planning).
Codrington, S. (2004), Applying the Concept of “Best Practice” to International Schools, Journal of Research in
International Education 3(2): 173–188.
Conley, D. (1993), Strategic Planning in Practice: An Analysis of Purposes, Goals, and Procedures, paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, April.
Davies, B. (2002), Rethinking Schools and School Leadership for the 21st Century: Changes and Challenges,
International Journal of Educational Management 16(4): 196–206.
Davies .B. (2004), Developing the Strategically Focused School, School Leadership & Management 24(1): 11–27.
Davies, B. (2005), The Essentials of School Leadership (London: Paul Chapman Publishing and Corwin Press).
Davies, B. (2006), Processes Not Plans are Key to Strategic Development, Management in Education 20(11): 11–15.
Davies, B. & Davies, B.J (2006), Developing a Model of Strategic Leadership in Schools, Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 34(1): 121–139.
Davies, B. & Davies, B.J. (2010), The Nature and Dimensions of Strategic Leadership, International Studies in
Educational Administration 38(1): 5–21.
Eacott, S. (2011), New Look Leaders or a New Look at Leadership?, International Journal of Educational
Management 25(2): 134 – 143.
Evans, R. (2007) The Case Against Strategic Planning, Independent School Magazine, National Association of
Independent Schools, Washington, DC.
Fiddler, B. (1996), Strategic Planning for School Improvement (London: Pearson).
Fullan, M. (2004), Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
Fullan, M. (2007), The New Meaning of Educational Change (New York: Teachers College Press).
Fullan, M. (2008), The New Meaning of Educational Change, 4th edition (London: Routledge).
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006), Designing More Powerful Systems of Reform (Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press).
Gamage, D.T. (2006), Professional Development for Leaders and Managers of Self-Governing Schools (Dordrecht:
Springer).
Hayward, F.M. (2008). Strategic Planning for Higher Education in Developing Countries: Challenges and
Lessons, Planning for Higher Education 36(3): 5–21.
Hopkins, D. (2005), The Practice and Theory of School Improvement: International Handbook of Education Change
(Springer).

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014 29
Jasparro, R.J. (2006), Strategic Planning: Is it Worth the Eort? The Superintendent’s Perspective, E-Journal of
Organizational Learning and Leadership: February.
Keough, S.M. & Shanahan, K.J. (2008), Scenario Planning: Toward a More Complete Model for Practice,
Advances In Developing Human Resources 10(2): 166–178.
Lane, R.J., Bishop, H.L. & Wilson-Jones, L. (2005), Creating an Eective Strategic Plan for the School District,
Journal of Instructional Psychology 32(3): 197–204.
Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2005), Transformational Leadership in a School Context, in B. Davies (ed.), The
Essentials of School Leadership. (London: Paul Chapman)
Levine, A. (2005), Educating School Leaders, The Education Schools Project, Washington, DC.
Lewin, K.M. (2008), Seeking Secondary Schooling in Sub-Saharan Africa: Strategies forSustainable Financing,
Secondary Education in Africa: Africa Human Development Series (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Mbugua, F. & Rarieya, J. (2014), Collaborative Strategic Planning: Myth or Reality?, Educational Management
Administration and Leadership 42(1): 99–111.
Miech, E.J. (1995), The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning and Strategic Planning in Education, The Harvard
Educational Review (retrieved on 10 September 2013 from http://www.hepg.org/her/abstract/310).
Mintzberg, H. (1994), The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (London: Prentice Hall).
Mulkeen, A. (2007), Recruiting, Retaining, and Retraining Secondary School Teachers and Principals in Sub-Saharan
Africa (Washington, DC: World Bank).
Onguko, B., Abdalla, M., & Webber, C.F. (2008) Mapping Principal Preparation in Kenya and Tanzania, Journal
of Educational Administration 46(6): 715–726.
Pashiardis, P. (2007), Strategic Planning: The Public School Setting, International Journal of Educational Management
7(4): 4–9.
Quong, T. & Walker, A. (2010), Seven Principles of Strategic Leadership, International Studies in Education
Administration 38(1): 22–34.
Rarieya, J.F.A. (2007), School Leadership in Kenya: The Lived Realities of Women Heads of Schools, Unpublished
doctoral thesis, Keele University, UK.
Reeves, D.B. (2008), Leading to Change/Making Strategic Planning Work, Educational Leadership Journal 65(4):
86–97.
Republic of Kenya (1980), Educational Act Cap 211 of the Law of Kenya (Nairobi: Government Printers).
Republic of Kenya (1999a), School Management Guide (Nairobi: Government Printers).
Republic of Kenya (1999b), Head Teachers’ Manual (Nairobi: Government Printers).
Republic of Kenya (2005a), Sessional Paper No. 5 – A policy Framework for Education Training and Research (Nairobi:
Government Printers).
Republic of Kenya (2005b), Kenya Education Sector Support Programme 2005–2010: Delivering Quality Education
and Training to all Kenyans (Nairobi: Government Printers).
Republic of Kenya, (2006), Strategic Plan 2006–2011 (Nairobi: Government Printers).
Rumelt, R.P. (2011), Good Strategy Bad Strategy: The Dierence and why it Matters (New York: Crown Business).
Schmoker, M. (2004), Tipping Point: From Reckless Reform to Substantive Instructional Improvement, Phi Delta
Kappan 85(6): 24–252.
Senge, P., Scharmer, C., Jaworski, J. & Flower, B. (2005), Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People,
Organizations and Society (London: Doubleday).

ISEA • Volume 42, Number 1, 2014
30
Snyder, K. J., Acker-Hocevar, M. & Snyder, K. M. (2008), Living on the Edge of Chaos Leading Schools into the Global
Age (Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press).
Steyn, H. & Wolhuter, C. (2010), Creating Sustainable Learning Environment of Schools by means of Strategic
Planning: The Experience of Engagement by Comparative Education Team at University, South African Journal
of Higher Education 24(3): 56–70.
Tsiakkiros, A. & Pashiardis, P. (2002), Strategic Planning and Education: The Case of Cyprus, International Journal
of Educational Management 16(1): 6–17.
Ugboro, I., Obeng, K. & Spann, O. (2011) Strategic Planning as Eective Tool of Strategic Management in Public
Sector Organizations: Evidence from Public Transit Organizations, Administration & Society 43(1): 87–123.
UNESCO, (2010), Strategic Planning: Organizational Arrangement, Educational Sector Working Paper 2,
International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris.
World Bank, (2008), Governance, Management, and Accountability in Secondary Education in Africa, World
Bank Working Paper No. 127.
Xaba, M. (2006), The Dicult of School Development Planning, South African Journal of Education 26(1): 15–26
Young, R.D. (2009), Perspectives on Strategic Planning in the Public Sector, Institute for Public Service and
Policy Research, University of South Carolina (retrieved from http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/
Perspectives%20on%20Strategic%20Planning.pdf).
Author Details
Christine N Wanjala
St Paul University
Department of Education, Limuru Campus
Private Bag 00217, Limuru
KENYA
Email: christinewanjala30@yahoo.com
Jane F A Rarieya (Corresponding author)
Human Sciences Research Council
Private Bag X07, Dailbridge, 4014
SOUTH AFRICA
Email: jrarieya@hsrc.ac.za

CopyrightofInternationalStudiesinEducationalAdministration(CommonwealthCouncil
forEducationalAdministration&Management(CCEAM))isthepropertyofCommonwealth
CouncilforEducationalAdministration&Management(CCEAM)anditscontentmaynotbe
copiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder's
expresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,oremailarticlesfor
individualuse.