Comparison+of+Two+Strategic+Plans

Abstract This paper compares the strategic plans from Virginia Beach City Public Schools and Christopher Newport University. The fundamental base of comparison of the plans is Holcomb’s five questions (Holcomb, 2009). The components of each institution’s strategic plan will be evaluated as to the degree in which the criteria specified in Holcomb’s //Asking the Right Questions// are met using the rubric established by Chance and Williams (2009). The strategic plan of public institutions should create and maintain a public value for the institutions; the level to which the plans achieve this goal will be assessed (Bryson, 2004, p.5). According to Schwahn and Spady (1998), productive change can only begin with a compelling organizational purpose that works in conjunction with a concrete, detailed vision statement to create strategic alignment. Each plan will be considered within its context to ascertain the level of strategic alignment that exists within the organization. The vision of an organization must be focused on useful societal ends; it should be an ideal vision (Kaufman, 2006). A well-constructed plan orchestrate results on the mega, macros and micro levels (Kaufman, 1992) while embracing the ideal of systemic reform as described by Fullan (1996), “The idea of systemic reform is to define clear and inspiring learning goals for all students, to gear instruction to focus on these new directions, and to back up these changes with appropriate governance and accountability procedures.” Each plan will be assessed as to its likelihood of inspiring and maintaining real systemic reform using the guidelines of Fullan, Kaufman and other theorists. Context Virginia Beach City Public Schools (VBCPS) is the largest school division in southeastern Virginia. It serves approximately 69,565 students in grades K-12. The system includes 56 elementary schools, 14 middle schools, 11 high schools and a number of secondary/post-secondary specialty centers. Several specialized academies exist at the elementary, middle and high school levels. The organizational structure of VBCPS is illustrated in Figure 1. The system recently underwent a planning effort to develop its //Compass to 2015// strategic plan. The VBCPS plan was obtained through the district web page in the form of a two page executive summary. This summary references the mission and vision and highlights the core strategies of the plan. Supplementary information is readily accessible through the website, although it is not a part of the plan as a formal, comprehensive document.

VBCPS is experiencing a declining student enrollment; from 2003 to 2008 student enrollment has decreased by 7.6% (VBCPS, January 15, 2009). This can be attributed to changes in the Caucasian student population, which has declined from 60.1% of the total student population to 55.8%, and increases in the percentage of students of unspecified ethnicity from 0.8% to 4.0%. The percentages of students classified as African American, Hispanic, native American and Asian have remained stable. It would appear that VBCPS is experiencing a //white flight// of sorts; fewer Caucasian students are choosing attending VBCPS schools. At the same time, African American males are dropping out of school at a disproportionately high rate, are not taking as many advanced classes and are not performing at levels on par with the other racial groups at VBCPS. Indeed, this student characteristic shift has had a great impact on their strategic plan; //Strategic Goal// 3 is centered on improving this situation. The economic downturn of 2008 and subsequent recession of 2009 have also taken their toll on VBCPS community; the expectation is to accomplish these //Strategic Goals// without additional resources.

Christopher Newport University (CNU) is Virginia’s youngest public university, located in the City of Newport News. Founded in 1960, it serves approximately 5,000 students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. CNU’s organizational structure is illustrated in Figure 2. The university consists of three colleges (the College of Arts and Humanities, the College of Natural Sciences, and the College of Social Sciences) and houses three graduate programs (in teaching, computer science, and environmental science). Opened initially as a regionally oriented commuter institution, CNU has quickly evolved over the last thirteen years into a residential liberal arts institution, drawing students from throughout Virginia and beyond. To advance this transformation, close to $1 billion of construction has taken place at CNU during this period.

To better manage CNU’s rapid evolution and plan more effectively for its future, the university community engaged in a strategic planning process in 2003-2004, which culminated in the //Vision 2010// plan. The plan was obtained through Prof. Linda Gordon, who led the strategic planning process, in the form of a nineteen-page executive summary. Elements of //Vision 2010// were also obtained through the CNU web site. The summary outlines the university’s vision as well as key institutional priorities. It also contains strategies and goals to provide further focus and definition to the established priorities.

The purpose of this paper is to compare and critique //Compass to 2015// and //Vision 2010//, using accepted forms of strategic planning criteria. With professional backgrounds in K-12 education and higher education, Andersen and Heuvel believed that analyzing strategic plans from these distinct educational realms would be an interesting and insightful scholarly exercise. Further, the comparison would provide insight into the similarities and differences between strategic planning in the K-12 and higher education sectors. Also, for purposes of learning Andersen and Heuvel believed it would be useful to compare a newer strategic plan with an older one. //Compass to 2015// was just implemented this year, and includes many goals that have not yet been realized. Conversely, //Vision 2010// is an older strategic plan that was implemented five years ago in a completely different economic context. As such, many of its goals have been accomplished and there is already speculation on campus concerning when the next strategic planning process will begin. Overall, the focus of this study is to determine the similarities and differences between strategic planning documents in a large public school system and a medium-sized public university. Comparison - Criteria For this study, the authors utilized Chance and Williams’ (2009) rubric for assessing the quality of a university’s strategic plan as the primary means of criteria. This rubric is highly applicable since it incorporates Holcomb’s five critical questions for strategic planning, which are collectively considered an industry standard in this type of planning: Where are we now? Where do we want to go? How will we get there? How will we know we are (getting) there? How will we sustain the focus and momentum? (Holcomb, 2009). Although the Chance and Williams rubric is designed for higher education institutions, the authors believed that it would also apply to a large school division such as VBCPS. With a student enrollment exceeding 65,000, the division has a larger population than most Division 1 research universities. As such, the authors believed that the Chance and Williams rubric would be the most appropriate resource for this type of study. Comparison - Analysis For any planning document, the introduction is a critical section that should ideally provide a clear and concise rationale for planning (Chance and Williams, 2009). Further, for public schools a strategic plan introduction should outline how they intend to benefit the larger community. According to Bryson, the crux of any strategic plan is its establishment and maintenance of public value for the organization (2004, p. 5). Further, educational policy has become a form of economic development policy to enhance the competitiveness of communities and firms (Bryson, 2004, p. 5). VBCPS’ vision is therefore directed appropriately, as it aims to provide communities and firms with a supply of people that possess the skills needed in those venues to be competitive. Kaufman (1991) identifies this as a //macro// level end, which should be the ultimate end of any strategic plan. Achieving this end will create public value for VBCPS. Similarly, CNU’s vision is also directed appropriately, since it aspires to cultivate graduates who engage as responsible leaders and citizens in their communities, states, and nations. As such, the authors would rate the introduction of each strategic plan as “excellent” according to the Chance and Williams (2009) rubric. According to Holcomb, her first question "where are we now?" is best answered through analysis of data from multiple years and multiple sources, culminating in the creation of a //district portfolio//. From this portfolio, the //organizational context// should be evident. The //organizational context// includes measurements of the current state of student learning, student characteristics, staff characteristics, parent characteristics and community characteristics. These measurements be derived from multiple sources and be monitored over multiple years (Holcomb, 2009). A summary of the details comprising the organizational context of VBCPS can be easily obtained from the annually published //Key Operating Measures//, obtained from the VBCPS web site (VBCPS, 2008). This document summarizes information from many sources over the period 2004 through 2008. Student learning is summarized via test results from several sources including SAT, ACT, Stanford Achievement Test, SOL pass rates from all four core areas, graduation rates, dropout rates, percentages of graduates receiving Advanced Studies diplomas, percentages of graduates continuing education, and the number of schools making annual yearly progress (AYP) for the division. This snapshot gives the reader an overview of the current state of student learning. Detailed student characteristics were compiled and illustrate the percentage of students by criteria such as race, gender, economic status, gifted, limited English proficiency, migrant and disabilities. Staff characteristics are summarized by qualifications, professional development courses taken, years of teaching experience and certifications attained. For members of the CNU community, answering the “where are we now” question meant formulating two distinct approaches. For one, they engaged in extended focus group sessions and community forums. CNU officials brought together students, faculty, staff, alumni, and outside community members to address this issue. As the university has quickly evolved from a local, commuter school into a nationally oriented liberal arts institution, there are still opposing opinions concerning the university’s current status. Many students, faculty, and staff are pleased with CNU’s current efforts to attract traditional-aged, high ability students from outside areas. Conversely, some alumni and veteran faculty feel like CNU has lost its way and abandoned its original mission of serving Peninsula residents. While such opposing opinions were raised in focus group meetings, they were not included in the university’s strategic planning documents. CNU also conducted data analysis through its office of institutional assessment. To determine its current status, it measured such benchmarks as graduation rates, dropout rates, attrition rates, percentage of graduates entering graduate school, etc. Worried by the relatively low numbers of these benchmarks, including graduation rates (which at the time hovered around 50%) university officials sought out strategies to boost those numbers as part of their strategic planning. While such numbers were discussed in planning meetings and campus forums, they were not included on //Vision 2010’//s executive summary. Only a brief history of the institution was included on the document to address the “where are we now” question. Since in both cases the VBCPS and CNU plans offered some basic information pertaining to their histories and current status, the authors would rate both plans as “good” on the “where are we now” component of the Chance and Williams (2009) rubric. While there was enough information provided for the reader of both plans to understand each organization’s background, there was not enough to rate them both as “excellent.” Holcomb’s second question, “where do we want to go?” is answered by setting goals and objectives (Holcomb, 2009; Lane, Bishop and Wilson-Jones, 2001). VBCPS has identified one strategic goal in the plan, “that by 2015, 95 percent or more of VBCPS students will graduate having mastered the skills that they need to succeed as 21st century learners, workers and citizens”. The VBCPS plan has five strategic objectives in support of this goal; they are listed in Appendix 1. Holcomb’s criteria for goals are partially met in that the goals and objectives are limited in number, potentially challenging and some are focused on classroom practice. (Holcomb, 2009) //SMART// goals or objectives, which are recommended by O’Neill and Conzemius (as cited in Holcomb, 2009) and Drucker (as cited by Lane, Bishop and Wilson-Jones, 2001), provide further means for assessment. //SMART// refers to strategic and specific, measurable, aggressive and attainable, results oriented, and time-bound. While the VBCPS strategic goal is time-bound, it is not specific. The goal uses a measure of a specific percentage of students will graduate by a specific year, but is vague in its criteria of mastery of the skills students need to succeed in the 21st century. In the case of VBCPS, each of the five objectives is associated with //key strategies// and //key measures// which spell out steps that will be taken by the organization to determine what 21st century skills are, to incorporate 21st century skills into the curriculum and to measure student achievement of 21st century skills. The steps to be taken are, for the most part, not quantified within the plan. For example, the measure “student success in meeting 21st century skills by using performance-based assessments” is listed as a key measure of VBCPS goal one without a specific quantity of what constitutes success. The goals are only as aggressive as the level of attainment that is set as the quantifiable goal (Lane, Bishop and Wilson-Jones, 2001). As listed in Appendix 3, the CNU plan establishes five priorities to specify “where they want to go”: a vital curriculum, a culture of student learning and engagement, an inspired faculty, a purposeful campus community, and an engagement between the campus and the larger community. Since each priority is fairly broad, there are also corresponding goals within each one to further refine them and to provide specific objectives for action. For example, under the priority of “a vital curriculum,” there are the following goals: provide an intellectually challenging and dynamic liberal learning curriculum, support learning that cultivates critical and innovative thinking, foster independent student learning, and connect liberal learning to ethical conduct and civic responsibility. Along with the VBCPS plan, analysts can learn a great deal about the CNU plan by applying it to the //SMART// goal guidelines. Regarding time frames, the CNU plan is only time-bound in that it assumes goal completion by 2010. Further, it is specific in outlining individual strategies for each of its goals that will be further outlined in the “how will we get there” section. While some of the goals in the plan are measurable, such as “enhancement of faculty development and resources,” many are not. For instance, there is no quantifiable way to measure “stimulating a lifelong desire for learning.” While the plan is aggressive and results oriented, with carefully considered priorities and goals, some of the goals are clearly more attainable than others. For example, with recent budget constraints and the necessity for heavy teaching loads, it has been very difficult for the university to achieve its goal of “ensuring an exceptional quality of faculty life.” Since the vision and core strategies of the VBCPS and CNU plans are clear and well articulated, yet not entirely feasible or quantifiable, the authors would rate them as “good” on this dimension of the Chance and Williams (2009) rubric. Review of the VBCPS website affirms that the criteria for Holcomb’s third question “how will we get there?” has been met to a large degree. VBCPS has reviewed research from non-practitioners and theorists, this is evidenced by the list of 21st century skill resources posted on the VBCPS //Compass to 2015// website (VBCPS, 2009). Best-practices from practitioners are also being utilized; VBCPS actively encourages action research by its own teachers and publishes completed action research projects on its website (VBCPS, 2009). Researchers have conducted several studies and their results have been published on the VBCPS website. Coordinated teacher collaboration is addressed in objective five, a key strategy for this objective is to develop, use and support Professional Learning Communities. The //key strategies// included in the plan for each //strategic objective// spell out the activities or steps that need to be taken, which is part of Holcomb’s action plan requirement (p.109). The action plan is incomplete due to its omission of people involved, people responsible, resources and timeline. For CNU’s //Vision 2010,// the “how will we get there” element of Holcomb’s model is achieved through a set of strategies present throughout the strategic plan. Within each of the goals attached to a university priority, there are several strategies that provide more specific guidance on how to operationalize that aspect of the plan. For instance, under University Priority III (an “inspired faculty”) Goal A (cultivate a faculty dedicated to teaching and learning excellence), there are five strategies, that range from clarifying faculty responsibilities to enhancing development resources and opportunities. While these strategies provide a bit more guidance in implementing the document’s goals, they are still somewhat vague and do not always clearly address who, what, when, where, and how they will be addressed. Like //Compass to 2015//, the CNU planning document is incomplete because it does not include the necessary people, resources, and specific timeline for goal completion. While such planning was conducted in both cases, the necessary information was not included in the final planning documents. For this reason, the authors believe that the VBCPS and CNU plans rank “good” on the “how will they get there” dimension of the Chance and Williams (2009) rubric. The VBCPS plan shows plans for training to ensure consistent, accurate implementation in strategic objective five, which is focused on the development of leader, teacher and staff competencies that are needed to achieve the division strategic goal. Indicators of implementation have been selected and are listed as //Key Measures// under each //Strategic Objective//, including annual data collection, indicators that are aligned with the goal and large-scale district and classroom assessments. These are the components Holcomb requires to adequately answer question four, “how will we know we are getting there?” (Holcomb, 2009). Conversely, there is no mention of assessment or evaluation in CNU’s //Vision 2010. //Further, no mention is made of mechanisms, schedules, or key performance indicators for assessing progress as listed in Chance and Williams (2009). Instead, university officials placed the duty of assessment and evaluation on academic and administrative departments. Deans, department chairs, and administrative supervisors were all informed that progress toward goals would be measured through faculty evaluations, departmental annual reports, and other official administrative documents. Accordingly, while VBCPS would be rated as “excellent” on the “how will they know they are getting there” dimension on the Chance and Williams (2009) rubric, CNU would be rated as “poor.” Answering Holcomb’s fifth question, “how will we sustain focus and momentum?” requires responding to reactions, training and coaching (at introductory and advanced levels), management of conflict, creation and support of a culture of inquiry, and support for leaders and followers (Holcomb, 2009). These elements are not specifically addressed in the //Compass to 2015// document. Upon investigation of the organization, it is readily apparent that some of these elements are addressed within other offices. A culture of inquiry is supported through the Action Research program supported by the VBCPS Office of Accountability. Training and coaching is provided through an extensive professional development program, which includes a component for individualized professional development (for advanced levels) and more basic, introductory offerings. Support for leaders and followers are specifically addressed in //Strategic Objective 5//. Response to reactions and management of conflict are not specifically addressed in the plan. CNU’s //Vision 2010// document also lacks any strategy for refining the plan over time. While arrangements for such planning may have been made in other settings, they do not appear on the //Vision 2010// document. Further investigation by the authors yielded that the university’s office of institutional assessment is responsible for monitoring the progress of //Vision 2010. //However, since it is not clearly stated on the planning documents, this information would be unknown to most CNU community members. As such, the authors ranked VBCPS’ //Compass to 2015// and //Vision to 2010// as “poor” on the “how can they keep it going” dimension of the Chance and Williams (2009) rubric. Summary of Ratings


 * =Holcomb’s Questions= || **VBCPS** || **CNU** ||
 * **1. Where are we now?** || Excellent || Excellent ||
 * **2. Where do we want to go?** || Good || Good ||
 * **3. How will we get there?** || Good || Good ||
 * **4. How will we know we are getting there?** || Excellent || Poor ||
 * ==5. How can we sustain focus and momentum?== || Poor || Poor ||
 * ==Overall== || Good || Good ||

Critique Overall, the authors rate //Compass to 2015// and //Vision 2010// as “good” plans when conducting a holistic or overall assessment. As indicated in the Chance and Williams (2009) rubric, they both address most content areas at the level of “good” or “excellent” and contain only a few weak areas. Specifically, strategies for sustaining focus and momentum are not addressed in either plan. However, the VBCPS strategic plan does an excellent job of addressing Holcomb’s five questions. One weakness of the plan is the scattering of information throughout the organization’s website. The document that VBCPS publishes as their strategic plan is actually an executive summary. It makes sense to offer this abbreviated document to the general public to provide an overview of the details of the plan. A more detailed plan did not appear to be available, however a wealth of information exists on the VBCPS website in summary form that answers Holcomb’s questions. For example, the answers to questions such as “Where are we now?” were not answered in the summary, but volumes of information could be found in a number of tables and charts made available in the //school data// section of the website (VBCPS, 2009). While the CNU //Vision 2010// is longer and more thorough than its VBCPS counterpart, it also resembles an executive summary more than an actual strategic plan. While it documents fully the university’s priorities, goals, and strategies, there is no information about evaluation or altering the plan to adjust to unforeseen circumstances. However, assessors of strategic plans must be cautioned that lack of evidence in the printed plan document does not necessarily mean that the issue was not considered or addressed. As was seen in the cases of CNU and VBCPS, a large amount of evidence available outside of the planning documents indicated that concerns not addressed in the actual plans were indeed thoughtfully considered. This was the case for both plans in answering Holcomb’s question five. Careful scrutiny of the documents contained in the extensive VBCPS website revealed a wealth of research, planning and support that was not evident in the plan itself. Further, CNU officials placed the responsibility of plan evaluation and adjustment on academic and administrative departments instead of laying it out specifically in //Vision 2010. //Considering the university’s decentralized organizational structure (especially in the academic arena) it was arguably more feasible and beneficial to provide department chairs and deans greater flexibility to formulate planning and evaluation measures for their own distinct departments. The plan should also provide evidence of use of //systems thinking// in the approaches the organization takes to achieving the plan goals (Thompson, 1999). The VBCPS plan’s //Strategic Objectives//, //Key Strategies//, and //Key Measures// provide an excellent framework to bring out significant change in that organization. Although the objectives do not possess all the //SMART// qualities, the data that is being collected on an ongoing basis is monitored for improvements or lack thereof. VBCPS is focused on creating measurable changes in their //Key Measures// and has looked both outward and inward for the ways and means. In a similar vein, CNU’s //Vision 2010// has been largely successful and many of its original priorities and goals have been achieved. Only time will tell the magnitude of sustained change that will result from these plans. If the organizations can sustain focus and momentum, VBCPS and CNU could be metamorphosed. According to Kaufman, “written objectives that only state where you are headed without also supplying precise criteria for knowing when you have arrived” are a critical planning enemy, which will keep you from getting there (1992). Both VBCPS and CNU fall short in this area, limiting their probabilities of success. The inherent non-linearity of the dynamics of change make orchestrating systemic reform challenging. If clear and inspiring learning goals are defined, instruction is refocused on these new directions, and appropriate accountability procedures are in place, the idea of systemic reform is present in the plan (Fullan, 1996). Both VBCPS and CNU have attempted to apply this idea in their plans, with varying degrees of success. CNU’s plan leaves the instruction and accountability up to the departments, while the VBCPS plan is more specific and directive regarding what the organization plans to do in these areas. Perhaps VBCPS has a greater potential for change using Fullan’s guidelines as the criteria. Fullan describes two powerful sets of strategies that are likely to bring about the changes at the bottom of the organization that will be necessary for systemic change to occur on a large scale: networking and reculturing and restructuring (1996). VBCPS documents strong evidence of the strategic and tactical features of networks and reculturing/restructuring, which is a strong indicator of the potential for future success of their plan.