Principals’ perspectives on the shift to short-cycle school improvement planning

Abstract

Principals are responsible for planning school improvement efforts at the school level to leverage increases in student achievement. Recent research underscores how principals engage in satisficing behaviors that result in low-quality school improvement plans (SIPs). To disrupt compliance-based planning practices and produce high-quality SIPs, some districts have shifted from yearlong planning to short-cycle planning. Districts need to establish a coherent understanding of improvement planning to motivate and sustain new principal planning practices. Through the coherence framework, this qualitative study explored one large urban district's shift from yearlong planning processes to short-cycle planning processes to understand principals’ perspectives on improvement planning and the potential shift to short-cycle planning. Researchers examined eight principals’ short-cycle plans. Principals who participated in a two-year partnership with a University System Leadership Program (USLP) for school-level support for school improvement were interviewed. Principal interviews, USLP site lead feedback, and principal supervisors’ interview data to triangulate the short-cycle plans. Data analysis revealed the existence of a perverse coherence that impeded principals’ shift to short-cycle planning. Findings suggest that districts examine their internal practices and processes influencing principals’ improvement planning practices and attend to principals’ understanding and practice of improvement planning by providing continuous professional learning and feedback.

Keywords

School improvement planning principals yearlong planning short-cycle planning coherence

Education reform laws mandating new accountability measures have intensified the expectation that principals be change agents while also prescribing many of the ways principals are to lead change. This dynamic is frequently more intense in schools identified as underperforming through the machinations of accountability systems (Acton, 2021; Sahlberg, 2016). As a result, principals’ workloads across all levels and contexts have increased globally to meet the demands of new policies and laws in efforts to catapult student performance (Coe, 2009; Oplatka, 2017; Philips et al., 2007; Saidun et al., 2015).

School improvement planning, an internationally accepted leadership practice for increasing organizational outcomes, has become a tool to organize and document school reform initiatives (VanGronigen and Meyers, 2020; Bickmore et al., 2021). Evidence from Europe and Australia underscores the significance of school improvement plans (SIPs; Wikeley et al., 2005). A study from Italy indicated a correlation between SIP quality and improved school outcomes (Caputo and Rastelli, 2014). Still, research on school improvement planning remains underdeveloped (VanGronigen and Meyers, 2020).

In the United States (U.S.), school improvement policies have mandated that schools identified as underperforming develop SIPs (Bickmore et al., 2021). Typically, principals, who are responsible for the implementation of improvement policies at the school level, develop SIPs as yearlong documents that identify schools’ academic priorities and reform strategies before sending those SIPs to a district office. The district office then reviews SIPs prior to submitting them to a state education agency for additional review, approval, and release of federal or local funding, if applicable (Dunn and Ambroso, 2019).

The legacy of highly bureaucratic systems can undermine the very change school leaders are increasingly tasked with guiding. Extant research highlights how principals, in particular, have regularly produced SIPs that districts and states are more likely to quickly approve; principals produce the SIPs that are expected of them, which are often those that explicitly respond to external accountability demands as opposed to school contextual needs (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019; Mintrop et al., 2001). Consequently, district offices frequently operate as middle managers, seeking to ensure that schools produce SIPs that sufficiently meet federal and state requirements.

Thus, improvement planning processes in schools can be described as bureaucratic, meaning they privilege and reward compliance with federal and state policies. Some research (e.g. Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019) underscores how planning processes are perfunctory, appearing to result in a perverse type of systemic coherence in which SIPs are not a tool to disrupt underperformance and alter schools’ organizational behavior, but instead facilitate bureaucratic compliance. Perverse coherence refers to an understanding of—even potentially a commitment to—improvement planning as a perfunctory and compliance practice. In short, SIPs have become a tool for documentation and fiscal allocation rather than organizational improvement (Phelps and Addonizio, 2006).

The nature of school improvement planning potentially inhibits innovative planning efforts (e.g. VanGronigen and Meyers, 2017). Given the strong influence of these bureaucratic roots, Stevenson and Weiner (2021) argue that educational leaders need support to reconceptualize how they approach developing and enacting SIPs. Some districts have shifted to short-cycle planning processes—those with SIPs that cover 45 to 90 days instead of the entire academic year—to more frequently assess and iterate on progress (e.g. Mintrop, 2016). Continual interactions associated with short-cycle plans should help leaders to cultivate a deep understanding of effective improvement planning processes. Thus, this coherence could reduce satisficing or compliance-based planning practices and instead promote more frequent intentional, real-time adjustments. Within a change process, such adjustments can increase organizational efficacy required for launching and sustaining organizational reform (Ezer and Demetis, 2007). The purpose of this study was to better understand principals’ perspectives on improvement planning and the potential shift from traditional to short-cycle planning in one large, urban district's initiative to adopt short-cycle planning processes. Specifically, we answered the following three research questions:
What do principals perceive to be the most significant aspects of school improvement planning?

How do principals compare yearlong improvement planning to short-cycle improvement planning?

How do principals describe their ability to facilitate a shift from yearlong improvement planning to short-cycle improvement planning?
This study contributes to the dearth of improvement planning scholarship and advances our understanding of short-cycle planning as a continuous improvement method to reduce bureaucratic redundancy and optimize the improvement planning process.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. First, we present a synthesis of the relevant literature to situate this study followed by an exploration of how coherence theory advanced our thinking with respect to the present study. We then outline our research design and methods before reporting findings. The article closes with a discussion of findings along with implications for research, policy, and practice.

Review of relevant literature

To frame this study, we begin our literature review with a brief discussion of the history of federal school improvement policy and the mandate for school improvement planning. We then discuss SIP quality and the call for short-cycle planning. Finally, we close by reviewing studies that examined districts’ roles in supporting SIP development.

History of school improvement planning

Education adapted school improvement planning from the private sector, where leaders promoted formal planning to improve organizational efficiency and performance (Edmondstone and Havergal, 1995). Early SIPs tended to focus on educational leaders’ management of school operations, including teacher assignments, course scheduling, and fiscal budgeting (Tyack and Hansot, 1982). Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) along with its two successors—the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA)—required all state-identified underperforming schools to create an annual SIP to create conditions for improvement (Duke, 2015). These federal policies have since instituted a shift in what SIPs are and how they are used.

NCLB altered the school improvement planning process by imposing increasingly severe sanctions for underperformance (NCLB, 2002). Improvement planning became more responsive to policy mandates, and SIP content skewed toward improving student achievement in English/language arts (ELA) and mathematics as sanctions increased (e.g. Mintrop and MacLellan, 2002). SIPs documented school efforts to foster increases in student academic performance to avoid harsh consequences, such as school closure, state takeover, and principal and faculty replacement (Thompson, 2018). Scholars (e.g. Meyers and VanGronigen, 2018; Mintrop, 2016) have criticized the yearlong SIP advanced by IASA and NCLB, citing its narrowed focus on ELA and mathematics, limited agility to make mid-year corrections, and the overall bureaucratization of what should be a comprehensive improvement process and useful tool.

School improvement plan quality and the impetus for short-cycle planning

Even as U.S. federal policies have shaped how educational leaders think about and develop SIPs, there is some evidence that planning in schools matters. Research on the use and effectiveness of school improvement planning has yielded support for the development of annual SIPs (Huber and Conway, 2015). Fernandez (2011), for example, found a positive relationship between SIP quality and student reading and mathematics outcomes. Similarly, Strunk et al. (2016) and Meyers and VanGronigen (2021) found positive correlations between SIP quality and initial increases in student achievement, although these effects were typically small and short-lived. For example, although Strunk et al. (2016) reported substantial changes in schools because of the SIPs developed as part of a district initiative, commitment to the new planning practices waned in subsequent years.

More commonly, research seems to suggest that planning in schools is mostly a compliance exercise. The evidence of principals satisficing (see Simon, 1957) with respect to planning practices now spans at least 20 years, meaning principals create SIPs that are good enough to get approved, but not really good enough to serve as an authentic way to improve schools (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019; Mintrop and MacLellan, 2002). SIPs frequently reflect the policies that demand them (Mintrop and MacLellan, 2002), and the issue is not limited to schools. There is evidence of districts, for example, approving the submission of similar—if not identical—SIPs from multiple schools and resubmission of unchanged SIPs over consecutive years (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019), suggesting that at least some districts also view planning through a compliance lens.

Short-cycle planning is an alternative process to yearlong planning that holds promise to disrupt compliance-oriented SIPs by establishing shorter planning cycles. Yearlong plans may include abstract goals schools cannot realize (Shattock, 1982) while short-cycle plans can better prioritize addressing schools’ current needs (Ezer and Demetis, 2007). Shorter, more frequent planning windows require educational leaders to identify fewer goals, narrowing the scope of SIPs (VanGronigen and Meyers, 2017, 2020). Further, some scholars (e.g. Duke, 2015; Mintrop, 2016) contend that short-cycle planning can be a more effective planning process, as it permits schools to be nimble and turn their SIPs into living documents that are adjusted throughout the academic year. The opportunity to implement mid-course corrections after the fall semester, for instance, could result in educational leaders reconceptualizing SIPs as an authentic tool that can actually improve their schools (VanGronigen andMeyers, 2017). Such a departure from yearlong, compliance-oriented planning processes requires districts—in their role as middle managers—to initiate change and provide support for educational leaders to create more authentic SIPs (Duke, 2015).

District support with planning

Studies investigating effective district support for improvement planning suggest that district leaders—typically principal supervisors—cultivate collaborative relationships among principals, help shape schools’ vision and strategic plan, and hold principals responsible as instructional leaders (Thessin, 2019). Further, Meyers and VanGronigen (2018) asserted that districts support improvement by promoting changes that prioritize improvement, building capacity for change by providing individualized support aligned to principals’ needs, and giving principals autonomy to drive the work specific to their schools. Principals, in turn, diagnose and attend to students’ learning needs during the improvement planning process by aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessments; communicating and reiterating explicit individual expectations; and creating opportunities and spaces for school stakeholders to gather, discuss, and consider student learning (see Meyers and VanGronigen, 2018).

ESSA gave more flexibility to states regarding the development and implementation of SIPs (Dunn and Ambroso, 2019). As a result, states along with districts and schools had to re-envision their roles with respect to improvement planning (Dunn and Ambroso, 2019). This expanded autonomy allowed districts, for example, to develop new ways of supporting school improvement planning (e.g. Meyers and VanGronigen, 2018), such as developing among all its educational leaders a common understanding of school improvement planning, its purposes, and how it is done effectively (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019).

Conceptual framework: coherence

Coherence is common, deep understanding with shared meaning that affects desired results. Coherence is a necessary component of organizational change (Fullan and Quinn, 2016). The development of a common depth of understanding among a group creates a psychologically-safe space for individuals to collaborate in making and adopting change. Coherence is achieved through four interconnected and reinforcing components: focused direction, cultivating collaborative cultures, deepening learning, and securing accountability (Fullan and Quinn, 2016).

The first component of coherence—focusing direction—is a well-articulated and aligned directional vision. The coherence framework postulates that schools have clear and specific goals and strategies. Fullan and Quinn (2016) argued that ever-changing and unconnected educational initiatives are the greatest threats to goal achievement in schools. Eliminating the jumble of initiatives and focusing on a select two or three goals with clear strategies holds promise to increase coherence. A focused direction can lead to change and purposeful action.

Cultivating collaborative cultures—the second component of coherence—promotes a focused direction by creating a culture of learning and growth around a vision. In collaborative cultures, leaders cultivate everyone's expertise by creating spaces for individuals to contribute their knowledge and skills toward the focused direction. In turn, individuals learn from their actions through trial-and-error. In districts with coherent improvement planning, everyone knows the district's or school's goals and strategies, can articulate their specific contributions toward the improvement efforts, and work together to achieve success.

The third component of the coherence framework—deepening learning—accepts that change requires a commitment to learning. Collective inquiry into examining the effects of organizational or instructional practices on student learning is central to building coherence. Deepening learning accelerates the improvement process by focusing on capacity building (Fullan and Quinn, 2016). School districts allocate resources and support, and provide professional learning opportunities to increase persons’ professional abilities and skills to advance the initiative.

Finally, in securing accountability—the fourth component—coherence is fostered by districts that build internal accountability—or the personal and collective responsibility for student outcomes (Fullan and Quinn, 2016). District leaders hold persons responsible for their professional growth and contributions throughout the initiative. Thus, coherence is developed through the four components-directed focus, collective inquiry, learning, and actions reified over time (Fullan and Quinn, 2016).

For this study, we define coherent improvement planning as a shared understanding that reflects the widely accepted purpose and best practices of school improvement planning. Districts establish coherence by identifying and communicating clear goals concerning school improvement planning, including what it is (and is not) and how to do it effectively (Leithwood et al., 2010). In districts with coherent improvement planning, district- and school-level officials have a shared understanding of the work they must do to accomplish their goals (Johnson et al., 2015).

Coherent improvement planning is developed in a collaborative culture where educational leaders—especially principals—increase their planning abilities through guided professional learning, practice, and feedback. Principal supervisors and principals hold each other accountable for cultivating planning capacity and implementing planning practices with fidelity to support effective improvement planning. Collectively, these processes advance a common understanding of the expected planning practices, resulting in a shared understanding of the desired SIP quality.

Methods

The context for this qualitative content analysis study is a large, urban school district partnered with the University Systems Leadership Program (USLP), which consists of two-plus years of district- and school-level support for school improvement, including district pre-work, executive education sessions for district and school leaders, and ongoing district and school support. USLP focuses on two components critical to successful and sustainable school improvement: (a) district capacity and conditions necessary to initiate, support, and enhance transformational change; and (b) high-impact leadership at the school level that develops a change vision and acts with urgency to move the school toward achieving it.

Research suggests that USLP is associated with significant and sustained improvements in student performance for participating schools (Meyers and VanGronien, 2021; Player and Katz, 2016). Short-cycle improvement planning is one of the core components of the USLP model. Partnerships between USLP and districts are built on the shared beliefs that professional learning must be consistent and ongoing and that systems change requires the engagement of principal supervisors along with principals of underperforming schools.

The study district enrolls over 200,000 students (Table 1). As part of its paid partnership with USLP, district leadership identified a subset of schools the district labeled as most underperforming. The eight schools in the partnership enrolled between 400 and 600 elementary-aged students. They all also had high levels of economically vulnerable students and were identified as Title I schools, meaning that the U.S. federal government uses taxpayer money to subsidize the schools for resources, extracurricular programs, etc. (U.S. Department of Education, 2022).

Data collection

The present study drew data from three sources within eight schools of the district: (a) short-cycle SIPs, (b) interviews with principal supervisors and principals, and (c) feedback from USLP personnel on submitted short-cycle SIPs. First, we collected and analyzed the short-cycle SIPs submitted by those eight schools in the Fall and Spring semesters of the 2019–2020 academic year (16 total SIPs). To triangulate our SIP analyses, we conducted semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 2009) with eight principals and two principal supervisors (10 total participants). Interviews—on average—lasted for approximately 45 minutes, and we asked questions about participants’ perspectives on improvement planning generally (e.g. How would you describe your experiences developing SIPs?) as well as questions about their SIPs specifically (e.g. How did you measure or determine if an action step had been satisfactorily completed?). Finally, USLP site leads provided feedback to principals on their SIPs, and we used this feedback as an additional source of data to consider our own analyses of SIPs and participants’ interview responses.

Data analysis

We conducted a qualitative content analysis using Atlas.ti to code our data inductively and deductively in alignment with the research questions (Creswell, 2013). To analyze interview transcripts, two researchers inductively coded two interview transcripts, employing in vivo coding to drive the initial round of code development (Miles et al., 2014). One researcher then conducted deductive coding using the coherence framework and research literature on school improvement planning to drive the second round of code development (Charmaz, 2014).

After merging inductive and deductive codes, one researcher analyzed all interview transcripts using the compiled list of codes. Next, that researcher reviewed the final codes, reduced the codes into larger categories, and further reduced the categories into broad themes, capturing interrelated data points (Miles et al., 2014) through continuous cycles of synthesizing, reducing, and interpreting data (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).

The short-cycle SIPs were collected during a USLP program assessment and initially scored by the researcher who conducted the participant interviews using the School Improvement Plan Assessment Rubric (VanGronigen and Meyers, 2017). The rubric served as an additional means for assessing SIP quality. Plan quality was assessed across 12 domains that included vision, activities and progress measures, context, organization, and resources. The five-level scale ranged from 0–4 (Level 0 = efforts to respond to the domain were not present in the SIP to Level 4 = efforts to respond to the domain were exemplary in the SIP).

We also conducted a content analysis of the SIPs and USLP feedback. Following procedures from Hsieh and Shannon (2005), we analyzed the data through a coding process to identify patterns within the documents. First, we highlighted frequently used words within the text, noting commonly included measures and improvement goals (e.g. student performance increases). Next, we noted repeated elements and blank sections within the SIPs and USLP feedback, highlighted commonalities and anomalies, and recorded initial thoughts. We then analyzed the principals’ interview responses to identify potential links with their short-cycle SIPs.

As noted above, we also studied the USLP-provided feedback given to principals about their SIPs. We reviewed the USLP feedback organizing the excerpts into codes (Patton, 2002). Together, these three data sources—SIPs, participant interviews, and USLP feedback—permitted us to consider short-cycle SIP quality alongside interview data. Finally, we organized the themes by selecting excerpts and codes that provided evidence supporting and challenging the interview responses.

Findings

Principals’ perceptions of the most significant aspects of school improvement planning

Authentic versus compliant planning

Principal descriptions of authentic planning practices included careful priority selection, alignment of school goals with professional learning, thoughtful implementation, and continuous progress monitoring. When asked about effective school improvement planning, principals provided examples of what they considered to be authentic planning; those examples inherently defined authentic planning as a reflective, intentional, and strategic process by which principals develop, align, and document their school vision, goals, priorities, actions, and progress indicators based on current school data for the school improvement. For example, Principal Two explained,
If it's done right without just trying to comply … it can be beneficial … [W]e were intentional with our priorities. Our focus at the time was reading just because we had a reading coach. So … all efforts to make sure our PD was wrapped around that, all efforts to make sure that we were looking closely and monitoring that data was everyone's focus.

Intentional and strategic alignment of school priorities and resources in their SIPs was an example of authentic planning.

Further, principal supervisors also suggested that authentic planning was significant and spoke to the district's efforts to ensure that principals engaged in it.
The last couple of years, we’ve been more intentional around this plan … [I]t really does need to be the work you’re doing in the school, not just something that you’re turning in for compliance purposes. (Principal Supervisor One)

Thus, authentic planning was perceived as an in-depth process that required forethought and execution. Principal supervisors suggested that planning was only effective when it was authentic and addressed schools’ contextualized needs. Principals’ descriptions of authentic planning exhibited a shared understanding of the purpose of school improvement planning as a tool to record and support school improvement, which suggested a high level of coherence around what quality improvement planning should be and include.

Defining the school's vision

Articulating a school vision was a recurring theme across principal responses. They elaborated on the importance of planning as a mechanism to articulate the school vision. Principal Five noted, “It's imperative. We have to have a vision—a clear vision.” Principal Eight expressed a similar sentiment, “I think [planning is] super important. You must have a goal and vision for the school. I think that by having [that vision] in place, there are people to support you with it.” Indeed, principals consistently pointed out that the vision established in their SIPs set up all else that followed.

Hitting targets

Hitting selected goals or targets was also a common theme across principals’ responses. Principals regularly indicated that SIPs must have targets to provide direction for schools to achieve their goals. Principals further considered SIPs as blueprints for improvement efforts and manuals for improvement success. Principal Five likened SIPs to teacher's lesson plans,
You can't expect a teacher to go into her classroom and teach a lesson and wing it. So, if I don't have [a SIP], it's almost like … I’m trying to hit the target and just shooting the arrows and praying and hoping it's going to hit it. So, it helps me stay focused.

Thus, SIPs were considered essential for maintaining fidelity and were vital for holding educators accountable for meeting their targets.

Principals’ perceptions of the attributes of short-cycle planning compared to yearlong planning

Despite responses generally favorable to improvement planning, principals noted challenges with their prior yearlong process. When prompted to talk about a yearlong SIP and its efficacy to organize change, Principal Four replied, “I don't think it's very helpful, no. […] I feel it's something that we do for compliance.” Along with the principals’ perspectives of yearlong planning effectiveness, the principal supervisors reported that principals were not consistently using the yearlong SIPs to structure their work.

The principals’ yearlong SIPs often lived in binders that were rarely, if ever, revisited after submission,
[Yearlong] planning has been more just, you know, checking a box, being compliant, honestly. I mean, we do include those goals – the big goals of what we do. You know we try to make them as relevant as we can, but they tend to be something that you talk about at the beginning of the year. They aren't as every day usable as you’d like them to be. (Principal Seven)

Collectively, principal and supervisor responses suggested that yearlong planning was not enacted as an authentic way to lead change, but, instead, as a perfunctory, compliance-based exercise.

Principals provided candid responses detailing how short-cycle planning was empowering compared to yearlong planning. Principals believed the short-cycle SIP was more detailed and practical for daily use. Comparing the two planning processes, Principal Six stated,
The [short-cycle plan] is a little more aligned to what we’re doing on a daily basis … [and] we have to tell how we’re going to get there. We have to be really specific and methodical in our strategy … That's the biggest difference that I see.

The structure of the short-cycle SIP was a frequently mentioned characteristic that differentiated the two planning processes.

Principals favored the short-cycle SIP template structure and used their SIPs to facilitate school-level leadership meetings. Principals believed the short-cycle process was more comprehensive for their daily work and found the designation of listing individuals accountable for implementing certain aspects of the plan to be helpful.

Inability to facilitate the shift to short-cycle planning

Principals and principal supervisors shared a deep understanding that improvement planning is important to student and school success. Further, participants held that the short-cycle planning process, when compared to the yearlong planning process, was a better strategy for improvement. Many participants consistently expressed excitement about the shift. Yet, despite their learnings and efforts, principals and their supervisors exhibited insufficient skill and/or will to substantially improve their SIPs or planning process. Overall, our review of the 16 short-cycle SIPs created by the eight schools over two academic semesters indicated that plan quality remained low.

Quality assessment

Although principals disclosed a relatively positive perspective of short-cycle planning, SIP quality scores from the spring semesters increased only slightly from the fall semester SIPs. The total mean scores were 1.78 for fall semester plans and 1.88 for spring semester plans. Both mean scores reached only the rubric's “Beginning” level. Further, the 16 SIPs generally lacked detail and failed to address a commitment necessary to improve school performance quickly.

Disappointingly, SIP mean scores decreased from fall to spring in three of the rubric's planning domains—progress indicators, sequencing, and supports. Even where SIP scores increased the most—process outcomes—scores still remained at the rubric's “Beginning” level. Indeed, while participants expressed appreciation for short-cycle SIPs, their engagement with the process—as measured by the rubric—suggested that the district had yet to fully promote coherent improvement planning among the principals of study schools.

Principals face planning challenges

Defining vision and goal development

Principals encountered several problems that disrupted their shift to short-cycle planning that may have contributed to the low SIP quality scores. Although principals regularly emphasized the importance of developing a good school vision, they routinely struggled to do so in their short-cycle SIPs. Most vision statements were narrowly focused on state-prompted student achievement goals, reflecting little consideration of other, more contextualized factors that influenced individual student performance. Five of the eight principals, for instance, received direct feedback from USLP site leads about refining and broadening their vision statements, including encouragement “to go beyond state accountability measures.”

SIP quality scores remained in the “Beginning” level for SIP submissions 1 and 2 (the first academic year participating in USLP) and exhibited a perverse planning coherence contrary to the participants’ responses and the espoused purpose of improvement planning. In fact, like Principal Seven, other principals regularly failed to respond to initial USLP feedback in their second short-cycle SIPs. This issue might be explained, at least in part, by principal supervisors who acknowledged that principals often crafted short-cycle SIPs “at the last minute.”

Short-cycle plan as a living document

Despite challenges with vision statements, goals, and root cause analyses, principals recognized the short-cycle SIP as a living document that they “look[ed] at every week.” Principals spoke enthusiastically about the adaptability of short-cycle SIPs and their decisions to revise their SIPs for mid-course corrections. Principal Three mentioned, “I probably adjusted [my plan] about four or five times […] We just kept adding to it to make it better […] I do feel it is a living document. It doesn't gather dust.” However, when we reviewed Principal Three's short-cycle SIPs, the principal did not follow through. Instead, the fall and spring semester short-cycle SIP indicator quality scores remained constant at 2.00, showing no improvement. In addition, the progress indicators and potential adjustment sections were frequently devoid of thoughtful development. Principal One's short-cycle SIP lacked any indicator dates and potential adjustments. In short, principals favorably commented on the inclusion of potential adjustments in the short-cycle SIP template, but did not do so in advance (i.e. Fall plan) or retrospectively (i.e. Spring plan).

Submitting incomplete SIPs

Principals submitted short-cycle SIPs with numerous blank sections. USLP site leads encouraged principals to revisit their SIPs when they submitted documents with blank sections. One site lead asked Principal One to draft a purpose statement when the principal submitted their SIP without one: “Consider a purpose statement that will invite, include, and inspire stakeholders to engage in your transformation efforts.” Even when the principal developed a purpose statement for the spring semester submission, it was still relatively underwhelming with respect to depth or inspiration. It read: “To create an environment where teachers can identify student need and provide data driven instruction.” Principals’ submission of short-cycle SIPs with several blank sections contradicted their reported positive perception of short-cycle planning and their conscious intent for SIPs as tools to lead their improvement enactments.

Planning support and professional learning

Professional learning may have advanced principals’ short-cycle planning skills, but principal supervisors did not provide such individualized opportunities for principals. To this end, professional learning could have developed and reinforced coherence around the new planning expectations. Principal Three remarked about their limited planning support,
[The district liaison] brings us all together as principals and gives us the updates and do the best they can in terms of, ‘Okay, hey, this is an example of what it should be.’ However, regarding sitting down, getting some really good professional development to help with that planning, no.

Although each principal received general planning support from their supervisors, several principals desired more individualized support. Principal Five expressed, “I would like to see the support be tailored just to my school because global support does not work with me; it never has.” The principal continued,
They’re giving us support. From their point of view, it may be great. But, from where I’m sitting, we’re not there […] I would like for something to be more individualized to me.

Principal supervisors’ inability to provide principals with individualized planning support may have influenced the principals’ ability to fully develop and implement short-cycle planning skills.

Principal supervisors described their efforts to aid principals similarly but positively. Principal Supervisor Two offered shared,
We bring them into meetings to discuss root cause to make sure that what they’re putting in their plan was based on addressing the problems in their school. We went over root cause analysis. […]We go through the template of the plan. We help them figure out what their instructional priorities should be.

Despite the principal supervisors’ collective support effort, the principals wanted individualized support for the short-cycle planning shift.

Progress monitoring was another persistent challenge that could have been addressed through professional learning. Many principals did not have a firm understanding of how to monitor SIP implementation efforts. Principal supervisors affirmed that their role as managers was to teach principals what progress monitoring is (and is not) and how to incorporate it into their SIPs. Principal Supervisor One stated,
I think part of our job at the central office is to help principals think through how to progress monitor the different actions or activities. How are you monitoring that that's working because if you don't monitor it along the way?

Principal Supervisor One later continued, “I feel like they need more training on [progress monitoring].”

While principal supervisors acknowledged principals’ progress monitoring learning gaps, they were unable to create a shared understanding of what effective progress monitoring was and how principals could incorporate those strategies into their short-cycle SIPs. Principal supervisors unintentionally led principals astray by initiating the shift to short-cycle planning without deconstructing the current compliance-oriented process and by not providing the necessary learning and support for increasing principals’ skills to develop short-cycle SIPs.

Insufficient planning feedback

Principal supervisors provided SIP modification recommendations that principals described as “generic.” While principals accepted that their supervisors believed they were providing meaningful feedback, principals’ accounts highlighted a gap between the feedback principals needed and the feedback principal supervisors provided. In fact, Principal One stated, “I don't feel I had any guidance or feedback on my plan. I feel like my district team was learning as we were.”

Principals attributed the lack of meaningful feedback to the principal supervisors’ unfamiliarity with the short-cycle planning process, which limited their ability to provide helpful feedback and support to principals and undermined the development of coherence around the new process. Principal supervisors’ responses corroborated the principals’ sentiments about their supervisors’ learnings. Alluding to their unfamiliarity with the short-cycle planning, Principal Supervisor Two revealed, “In terms of the [short-cycle] plan, I must admit I can be better [at giving feedback and support] because it was new for me, too, this past year.”

Overall, principals’ interview responses reflected the widely accepted goal and purpose of school improvement planning, defined in federal education policy as an essential process to develop and document schools’ priorities and academic goals. Principals viewed SIPs as inherent to school improvement, as SIPs could be developed to outline clear visions, goals, actions, and measures for assessing implementation success. Principals and their supervisors expressed positive perceptions of short-cycle planning; however, their transition to short-cycle planning was challenging. The content and quality assessment of short-cycle SIPs along with USLP feedback provided evidence of gaps between their perceptions and enactments of short-cycle improvement planning. In sum, our findings suggested a chasm between their shared positive understanding and perceived benefit of short-cycle planning and their ability to facilitate an initially successful shift to short-cycle planning. The incongruence in participant understanding and response appeared to diminish the potential efficacy of the change initiative.

Discussion

Our findings showed that principal and principal supervisor perceptions reflected a shared understanding of school improvement planning that mirrored the widely-accepted purpose of SIPs as a tool to disrupt chronic underperformance and change organizational behavior. Scholars have critiqued the yearlong approach to school improvement planning, illuminating gaps between its intended purposes and enactment (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2021; Duke, 2015). Over the past decade, short-cycle planning has gained popularity as a way to interrupt ineffective yearlong planning processes and create conditions for higher-quality SIPs that lead to improved student and school performance (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019; Duke, 2015).

We know that some principals engage in satisficing planning behaviors that result in low-quality SIPs (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2019), but the district in the present study was shifting to a short-cycle planning process to increase principals’ engagement in planning processes. The shift to short-cycle planning is conceptual; it requires a reframed understanding of the planning process from an annual evaluative approach to an ongoing improvement practice (Mintrop, 2016).

The district implemented short-cycle planning as an opportunity to develop smaller actionable targets for achieving long-term goals that are typically identified in year-long plans. Our findings suggest that the transition to short-cycle planning necessitates a coherent understanding of short-cycle planning in which district and school leaders develop a deep understanding of short-cycle planning, its purposes, advantages, how it differs from yearlong planning, and how to conduct it effectively. The perverse coherence advanced by district leaders and principals, however, may have limited the effectiveness of short-cycle planning as a lever to influence conditions supporting school improvement.

Like previous studies on school improvement planning, our findings suggest that education policies influence how principals perceive planning (VanGronigen and Meyers, 2017; Strunk et al., 2016). Principals and their supervisors shared a positive perception of short-cycle planning when compared to the yearlong process. They cited changes in structure, detail, and practicality as key reasons to shift from yearlong to short-cycle planning. Despite the shift, though, SIP content changed minimally. These findings potentially suggest a perverse coherence in which a long history of bureaucratization of improvement planning impedes initiatives to make the process more relevant to educational leaders.

Prior to the shift to short-cycle planning, principal supervisors accepted yearlong SIPs knowing principals did not craft them with the intent to authentically drive improvement efforts. Principals referred to improvement planning as “checking a box.” Principals reported that the yearlong SIP was a broad and seldom used tool in their daily work; principals rarely, if ever, revisited or modified their yearlong SIPs after submission. Though our conceptual framework centered on coherence, the present study's findings demonstrated that while principals expressed positive perspectives about shifting planning processes, the low-quality short-cycle SIPs underscored numerous challenges principals experienced trying to make the shift.

Mainly, principals planning behaviors remained unchanged. Like other studies, principals’ short-cycle plans included long-term priorities such as student achievement. However, these vague priorities failed to identify underlying problems contributing to the underperformance (VanGronigen and Meyers, 2020). Despite the shift, principals’ decisions to minimally modify their short-cycle plans suggest their fixed perception and engagement with SIPs as an evaluation tool instead of a growth or development approach (Laverty, 2004). The perverse coherence illustrated by the unmodified plans, limited the principals’ ability to monitor progress and identify and respond to current conditions maintaining underperformance (VanGronigen and Meyers, 2020).

Although the district—with USLP—established a commitment to short-cycle planning, principals seemed to regard the district's shift to short-cycle planning as a new form of an old compliance-oriented task. Further, principal supervisors’ inability to cultivate a collaborative culture hindered their ability to aid principals in unlearning their previous planning practices and implementing a coherent short-cycle planning process. Instead, supervisors directed principals to learn and adopt the short-cycle planning process without creating the conditions for cultivating a collaborative culture necessary to build principals’ understanding of or commitment to short-cycle improvement planning.

Moreover, examining the absence of professional learning with respect to the coherence framework, the district was unable to deepen the principals’ knowledge regarding short-cycle planning. Deepening learning permits learners to collectively examine their practices to improve organizational and student outcomes; the adoption of a shared understanding of school improvement planning and a subsequent change in planning practices was compromised because of the lack of deepened learning around short-cycle planning's continuous improvement process.

Notably, principal supervisors recognized that principals created yearlong SIPs for compliance, yet supervisors failed to address the organizational culture sustaining said compliance during the shift to short-cycle planning. Additionally, principal supervisors were novices in short-cycle planning and were unable to provide the deep learning necessary to affect principals’ practices. Perhaps the principal supervisors’ inexperience with short-cycle planning also hindered their ability to hold principals accountable for their planning efforts. The coherence framework assumes that securing accountability is a central component of building a shared understanding of improvement planning. Our findings suggest that without internal or self and collective accountability from the principals and their supervisors, the principals did not adopt a strong collective responsibility for improving the quality of their plans. The principals instead appeared to sustain the perverse improvement planning coherence established through years of yearlong planning because, in part, the district failed to establish coherence around short-cycle improvement planning by not fully attending to the four components of coherence: focusing direction, cultivating collaborative cultures, deepening learning, and securing accountability.

The district's perverse coherence around improvement planning essentially demonstrated a lack of accountability for satisficing planning practices. Consequently, principals comprehended and engaged in compliance-oriented short-cycle improvement planning. For example, principals submitted incomplete short-cycle SIPs with numerous blank sections, did not respond to USLP feedback, and often provided surface-level analyses and information while several principals in the district submitted SIPs with almost identical goals. Regarding this latter point, while the needs of underperforming schools might be similar, we saw little evidence of intentional contextualization of goals.

The district's USLP participation perhaps influenced the principal supervisor and principal perceptions of the short-cycle planning process. Principals, for instance, stated that the short-cycle SIP—which they viewed as a living document—influenced their daily work. Moreover, principal supervisors noted providing principals feedback on their short-cycle SIPs and continuous support for SIP development and enactment. However, principals argued that principal supervisor feedback was not helpful. Despite principals’ expression of high regard for short-cycle planning, USLP feedback on submitted SIPs further highlighted gaps between what principals said and what they did. Principals consistently failed to respond to USLP feedback urging them to address incomplete SIPs, think deeply about their SIP purpose statement and goals, and explicitly articulate how action steps would advance goals.

This study's findings suggest that short-cycle planning might interrupt the bureaucratic redundancy and satisficing planning behaviors that result in low-quality improvement plans by reframing the planning process as a continuous improvement effort. However, our findings indicate that principals and supervisors must overcome the perverse coherence associated with compliance-based planning. They must learn how to reconceptualize improvement planning as a continuous practice to capitalize on the benefits of short-cycle planning fully.

Limitations

The methodological limitations of this study concern the generalizability of our results. The principals in this study were a segment of the district's total principal population. Additionally, the principals were leading some of the district's underperforming schools and were involuntarily selected to participate. Further, this study focused on the school improvement planning process without consideration of implementation. We also note that the professional conversations that occur throughout plan development have benefits that are not reflected in this work. Finally, the researchers who conducted the interviews and SIP quality assessments were affiliated with the USLP. Thus, while the study results are consistent with participants’ responses, the researchers’ affiliation with the USLP may have influenced interviewees’ responses.

Implications

Our findings indicate that districts need to provide supports to aid in school improvement planning that produces high-quality SIPs. Similarly, we found that the misalignment of a district planning initiative and appropriate supports preserved satisficing planning practices and resulted in low-quality SIPs. Therefore, districts should establish common practices that establish coherence around district initiatives that produce new paths to improve schools. Districts need to engage in their own planning to coordinate efforts, align initiatives and supports, and increase principals’ capacity to implement those initiatives.

The findings indicate that the principal supervisors may have approached principal planning development as a management issue, a perfunctory process mandated by the federal and state governments. Further, these findings advance questions about principals’ and their supervisors’ understandings of management and leadership. The planning literature suggests that principals in an improvement context need a vision for what the school could be (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2018). Thus, we conclude that improvement planning involves considerable leadership competencies to progress organizational success.

To close, this study suggests that the presence of perverse coherence can inhibit the use of new planning practices. Further research into the comparison of yearlong and short-cycle planning is needed to understand how practices from one process—yearlong, for instance—transfer to another process, such as short-cycle. Moreover, while scholars (e.g. VanGronigen and Meyers, 2017; Duke, 2015) recognize short-cycle SIPs as an alternative to yearlong SIPs, the field needs to examine the bureaucratic nature and practices of school improvement planning to improve the general quality of SIPs. As this study only addressed plan quality and change, more work is needed to observe the planning process itself to learn how principals produce high-quality plans. In addition, future work should explore educational leadership preparation programs to understand how aspiring leaders are taught to enact improvement planning and identify effective ways to create high-quality SIPs. Further, the findings allude to more inquiries to understand how district leaders implement improvement policies. Finally, more research is needed to understand how district practices and support can maintain or disrupt ineffective planning practices around various change initiatives.

Table 1.
School profiles.

School Population (nearest 100) English language artsSatisfactory performance percentage Percentage of economically vulnerable students Demographics

1 600 19 98.1 Black: 42%
Hispanic: 52%
White: 4%

2 600 32 95.6 Black: 80%
Hispanic: 12%
White: 4%

3 400 21 98.7 Black: 83%
Hispanic:8%
White: 4%

4 500 27 94.9 Black: 13%
Hispanic: 36%
White: 43%

5 600 30 96.6 Black: 26%
Hispanic: 57%
White: 11%

6 400 33 92 Black: 43%
Hispanic: 32%
White: 17%

7 600 27 98 Black: <1%
Hispanic: 93%
White: 6%

8 700 39 98.1 Black: 7%
Hispanic: 50%
White: 34%

School	Population (nearest 100)	English language artsSatisfactory performance percentage	Percentage of economically vulnerable students	Demographics
1	600	19	98.1	Black: 42% Hispanic: 52% White: 4%
2	600	32	95.6	Black: 80% Hispanic: 12% White: 4%
3	400	21	98.7	Black: 83% Hispanic:8% White: 4%
4	500	27	94.9	Black: 13% Hispanic: 36% White: 43%
5	600	30	96.6	Black: 26% Hispanic: 57% White: 11%
6	400	33	92	Black: 43% Hispanic: 32% White: 17%
7	600	27	98	Black: <1% Hispanic: 93% White: 6%
8	700	39	98.1	Black: 7% Hispanic: 50% White: 34%

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Tiffany S Aaron

Coby V Meyers

Bryan A VanGronigen

Author biographies

Tiffany S Aaron is an assistant professor in the School of Human Development and Organizational Studies at the University of Florida. Dr. Aaron's scholarly examines school leaders’ equity-centered practices to lessen the impact of systemic inequalities to initiate and sustain increases in student achievement in underperforming and turnaround schools. Prior to her doctoral studies, Dr Aaron served as a high school social studies teacher and a professional learning consultant in K-12 school districts.

Coby V Meyers is the Chief of Research of the Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education (PLE) and Associate Professor of Education in the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Virginia. Dr Meyers’ research focuses on understanding the role of school system leadership, especially in the context of underperforming schools.

Dallas Hambrick Hitt, PhD, teaches at the School of Education and Human Development at the University of Virginia. She has a substantial body of research within the field of school turnaround, including sustained school turnaround, identification of a model for turnaround principal competencies, and effective turnaround leadership. Her cutting-edge work on school turnaround and leadership is intended for both scholars and practitioners and is published as peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and technical assistance instruments.

Bryan A VanGronigen is an assistant professor of education specializing in Educational Leadership at the School of Education at the University of Delaware. His overarching research focus is on organizational resilience and change management in K-12 schools with specific interest areas in school improvement efforts, the preparation of educational leaders, and educational policy analyses. Prior to completing doctoral studies, Bryan was a middle school and high school social studies teacher, department chair, and school leadership team member.

References

Acton

(2021) School leaders as change agents: Do principals have the tools they need?. Management In Education 35(1): 43–51.

Bickmore

Roberts

Gonzales

(2021) How aspiring principals applied course-based learning to develop school improvement plans. Journal of Educational Administration 59(2): 199–214. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-06-2020-0139.

Caputo

Rastelli

(2014) School improvement plans and student achievement: Preliminary evidence from the Quality and Merit Project in Italy. Improving Schools 17(1): 72–98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480213515800.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Coe

(2009) School improvement: Reality and illusion. British Journal of Educational Studies 57(4): 363–379. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27742725

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Duke

(2015) Leadership for Low-performing Schools: A Step-by-step Guide to the School Turnaround Process. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dunn

Ambroso

(2019) Balancing Act: State and District Roles in School Improvement Under ESSA. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Edmondstone

Havergal

(1995) The death (and rebirth?) of organisation development. Health Manpower Management 21(1): 28–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/09552069510084042.

10.

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. 2015. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

11.

Ezer

Demetis

(2007) Down with strategy: in defense of short-term thinking. Journal of Business Strategy 28(1): 57–63.

12.

Fernandez

(2011) Evaluating school improvement plans and their effect on academic performance. Educational Policy 25(2): 338–367. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904809351693.

13.

Fullan

Quinn

(2016) Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts, and Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

14.

Hsieh

H-F

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

15.

Huber

Conway

(2015) The effect of school improvement planning on student achievement. Planning and Changing 46(1–2): 56–70.

16.

Johnson

Marietta

Higgins

, et al. (2015) Achieving Coherence in District Improvement: Managing the Relationship Between the Central Office and Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

17.

Laverty

(2004) Managerial myopia or systemic short-termism? The importance of managerial systems in valuing the long term. Management Decision 2(8): 949–962.

18.

Leithwood

Harris

Strauss

(2010) Leading School Turnaround: How Successful Leaders Transform Low-Performing Schools (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Merriam

(2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Revised and Expanded From Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Meyers

VanGronigen

(2019) A lack of authentic school improvement plan development: Evidence of principal satisficing behavior. Journal of Educational Administration 57(3): 261–278. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0154.

21.

Meyers

Vangronigen

(2021) Planning for what? An analysis of root cause quality and content in school improvement plans. Journal of Educational Administration 59(4): 437–453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2020-0156.

22.

Meyers CV and VanGronigen BV. (2018). So many educational providers, so little evidence. American Journal of Education 125(1): 109–139. doi: 10.1086/699823.

23.

Miles

Huberman

Saldaña

(2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Mintrop

MacLellan

(2002) School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation. Elementary School Journal 102(4): 275–300. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/499704.

25.

Mintrop

MacLellan

Quintero

(2001) School improvement plans in schools on probation: a comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(2): 197–218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969299.

26.

Mintrop

(2016) Design-based School Improvement: A Practical Guide for Education Leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

27.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

28.

Oplatka

(2017) Principal workload: components, determinants and coping strategies in an era of standardization and accountability. Journal of Educational Administration 55(5): 552–568.

29.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Phelps

Addonizio

(2006) How much do schools and districts matter? A production function approach to school accountability. Educational Considerations 33(2): 51–62.

31.

Philips

Sen

McNamee

(2007) Prevalence and causes of self-reported work-related stress in head teachers. Occupational Medicine 57(5): 367–376.

32.

Player

Katz

(2016) Assessing turnaround: evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal 116(4): 675–698. doi.org/10.1086/686467.

33.

Sahlberg

(2016) The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In: Mundy

Green

Lingard

Verger

(eds) Handbook of Global Education Policy. Oxford: Wiley, 128–144.

34.

Saidun

Mohd

Borhandden-Musha

(2015) Problems faced by novice principals in Malaysia: an exploration study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6(4): 562–569.

35.

Shattock

(1982) How should British universities plan for the 1980s? Higher Education 11(2): 193–210.

36.

Simon

(1957) Models of Man. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

37.

Stevenson

Weiner

(2021) The Strategy Playbook for Educational Leaders: Principles and Processes. New York: Routledge.

38.

Strunk

Marsh

Bush-Mecenas

, et al. (2016) The best laid plans: an examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly 52(2): 259–309. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616864.

39.

Thessin

(2019) Establishing productive principal/principal supervisor partnerships for instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 57(5): 463–483. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2018–0184.

40.

Thompson

(2018) School administrators’ and stakeholders’ attitudes toward, and perspectives on, school improvement planning. Educational Planning 25(4): 7–26. https://isep.info/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/25.4.1SchoolAdministratorsStakeholders.pdf

41.

Tyack

Hansot

(1982) Managers of Virtue: Public School Leadership in America, 1820–1980. New York: Basic Books.

42.

U.S. Department of Education (2022) Title I Part A. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html (accessed 14 July 2022).

43.

VanGronigen BA and Meyers CV (2017). Topics and trends in short-cycle planning: Are principals leading school turnaround efforts identifying the right priorities? Planning and Changing 48(1&2): 26–42.

44.

VanGronigen BA and Meyers CV (2020). Short-cycle school improvement planning as a potential organizational change lever: An analysis. Teachers College Record 122(5). https://www.tcrecord.org/Issue.asp?volume=122&number=5&volyear=2020

45.

Wikeley

Stoll

Murillo

, et al (2005) Evaluating effective school improvement: Case studies of programmes in eight European countries and their contribution to the effective school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 16(4): 387–405. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500234617.