Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to describe and compare strategic planning practices among selected California public school districts. Methodology. Thirty districts were purposively selected for their current involvement in long-range planning activities, state-wide geographic representation, size, setting, and willingness to be studied. Thirteen strategic planning process elements and two district descriptors were used to study, analyze and describe district planning practices. Semi-structured interviews of key administrators and staff, along with planning document review were used to collect research data. Trained research study teams assisted in the conduct of the case studies. All thirty district case studies were conducted in the Fall of 1987. Summary of findings. In 80% of the districts studied, the superintendent was the visionary and plan leader. Although district plans to plan generally included all major strategic planning process elements, only 50% of the districts used them to a great extent in planning. Most commonly, district long-term plans covered a 3-5 year time span. District perceived strategic planning pluses were: (1) stakeholder buy-in, (2) the establishment of clear direction, and (3) improved communications. Factors perceived as limiting district strategic planning were: (1) insufficient time, and (2) the uncertainty of state funding. There were no significant differences found in the effectiveness of small, large, urban or rural district strategic planning practices. Conclusions. (1) The district superintendent, as CEO, plays an important change agent role in strategic planning; (2) public schools are basically reactive in response to their environment; (3) successful strategic planning efforts have no significant limitations brought about by either district size or setting, and (4) public school districts are more successful and secure with short, to intermediate-term strategies and objectives, rather than long-term strategies. Recommendations. That school districts: (1) broaden employee involvement; (2) draft written organization mission statements; (3) formalize their data analysis and trend extrapolation processes; (4) ask superintendents to take a stronger role as visionary leaders; (5) increase commitment to the process; (6) establish their own planning models; and (7) budget sufficient time for planning activities.