Planning for what? An analysis of root cause quality and content in school improvement plans

Abstract

PurposeLimited research on root cause analysis exists in educational leadership. Accurately diagnosing and detailing root causes—the why—of organizational failure, as is relatively common in other fields, could improve principals' ability to devise situationally- and contextually-responsive solutions in their improvement plans. In this study, the authors analyze school improvement plans to provide insight into how principals use root cause analysis to identify their and their school's failures as a way to respond strategically with goals and action steps.Design/methodology/approachIn this exploratory qualitative study, the authors develop coding schemes and leverage an existing rubric of school improvement plan quality to assess what principals identify as root causes for 216 priorities across 111 school improvement plans.FindingsThe overall quality of root causes submitted by principals was low, typically between “beginning” and “developing” stages. The majority of root causes aligned with priorities and desired outcomes, but fewer than one-third had a systems focus. Moreover, less than half of root causes suggested that school leaders played a part in the organizational failures. The vast majority of plans instead identified teachers as the root cause, foundational fault or “why” of the problem.Originality/valueAn increased understanding of root cause analysis conceptualization and development seems necessary if improvement planning is to be a strategic response to a school's most serious organizational challenges. The predominant approach to school improvement planning has focused almost exclusively on how to succeed or become better with little investment in identifying root causes of organizational decline or failure. This initial study of root cause quality in school improvement planning is a key first step in critically thinking about how improvement is to be achieved when failure is unconceived.

State ESSA Plans and Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) Status

“…These strategies are practically useful to understand what is currently not working within schools and strategically plan to address those shortcomings. Yet, we know precious little about how these strategies can be leveraged effectively (Meyers & VanGronigen, 2021). In short, these strategies have been commonplace for years without any clear advancements in how they are (and should be) used.…”

Promises and pitfalls: principals using short-cycle school improvement plans to optimize organizational change

“…The notion of a principal, and perhaps other school leaders, mapping organizational change efforts was formally established approximately 40 years ago (Tyack and Hansot, 1982). School accountability policies—first at the state level (Mintrop et al ., 2001) and then at the federal level (Stevenson and Weiner, 2021)—mandated that schools identified as underperforming submit an annual SIP, which was intended to be a lever for principals to formally map and lead organizational change efforts while also serving as a bureaucratic check on progress (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2021).…”

“…Instead, the SIPs they develop mirror the language of accountability policies (Mintrop et al ., 2001) and often satisfice (Simon, 1957), meaning the SIP content is developed just enough to meet accountability policy mandates. To help educators optimize instead of satisfice, third-party vendors, state departments of education, and university programs have increasingly advanced the use of short-cycle school improvement planning (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2021).…”

“…The few studies that have examined school improvement plan (SIP) implementation suggest that educators often engage in “satisficing” behaviors, meaning their plans are just “good enough” to meet basic expectations (Simon, 1957). For example, we recently examined a sample of SIPs from educators in underperforming schools and found that leaders seemed to be “going through the motions” in a few ways, such as submitting the same SIP—unchanged—across multiple academic years (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2021; also see Mintrop et al ., 2001). Such behaviors suggest that the school improvement planning process may be superficial, a potential a waste of time and resources and demotivating for school staff.…”

“…unchanged-across multiple academic years (Meyers and VanGronigen, 2021; also see Mintrop et al, 2001). Such behaviors suggest that the school improvement planning process may be superficial, a potential a waste of time and resources and demotivating for school staff.…”