Research indicates that planning is an essential element contributing to improve organizational performance, outcomes and processes in schools (Bickmore, Roberts & Gonzalez & 2021; Caputo & Rastelli, 2014; Fernandez, 2011; Huber & Conway, 2015; Strunk et al 2016; Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019; Mintrop, 2016; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2020), especially in educational systems that are data-driven, results-oriented, where accountability is a trend (Caputo & Rastelli, 2014; Mintrop & McLellan, 2002). Typically, the process of improvement planning culminates in a yearly “school improvement plan” (SIPs) led by principals and their teams. SIPs are comprehensive documents that help to establish priorities, goals, strategies, actions, indicators and results, among other elements (Férnandez, 2011). Some studies have shown a correlation between the quality of SIPs and student learning outcomes (Fernández, 2011; Strunk et al 2016), thus careful planning is key to obtain positive changes. Unfortunately, there is evidence that SIPs are not well-designed suggesting an unwillingness or inability of school teams to engage fully in a meaningful planning process (Meyers & VanGronigen, 2019, p.274). A significant challenge is moving from a perception of SIPs as a bureaucratic and administrative tool for documentation, essentially perceived as an external accountability demand, to an authentic plan responding to real improvement needs and organizational learning (Meyers & Vangronigen, 2019; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2020).

Following the international trend, Chile has implemented SIPs as a national educational policy since 2014. Based in a continuous improvement cycle, The Ministry of Education mandates schools to design and implement a four year-long SIP. This cycle is composed of two phases: a first strategic phase and then an annual phase. The following steps contain the continuous improvement cycle in Chile: (1) Analysis of the educational project and developing a self-assessment process, (2) Planning goals and objectives strategically, (3) Planning annual strategies and actions (4) implementation and (4) evaluation. Schools submit their plans to an online platform to be checked by their school district. This traditional approach of school improvement may not create a sense of urgency required for schools who need to improve quickly (Mintrop, 2016; VanGronigen & Meyers, 2020). An alternative and complementary approach for improving more rapidly to the constant environmental changes is the short-cycle planning. This approach builds confidence, increases collective efficacy and allows to gauge progress and assess outcomes (VanGronigen & Meyers, 2017).

Using the short-cycle planning approach, this research presents perceptions of 19 schools in 6 different districts in designing, implementing and evaluating the first short-cycle plan during 2023.This qualitative study addresses the following research questions: How do participants compare yearlong improvement planning to short-cycle approach? How do participants perceive short-cycle plans as a approach to improve with sense of urgency?

The study uses a qualitative methodology (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This type of methodology seeks to understand from individuals who experience a phenomenon how they interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds and what meaning they attribute to those experiences (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). From this perspective, we seek to understand the meanings attributed to the planning, implementation and evaluation of short-cycle improvement plans. All participants (n=86) in this study are part of a two-year program for educational improvement that uses the RPP model (Research-Practice Partnership) composed by 6 school districts, 19 public schools (k-12) and a Leadership Center from a University. Data collection and analysis The data were collected at the end of 2023 in an evaluation of the implementation of the program in its first year. The focus of the research was to understand both what the participants learned in their improvement processes as well as the functioning of the RPP using short-cycle. To collect the data, an interview protocol was used. In the case of this research, the interviews were recorded and transcribed. After that, the research team reviewed each of the transcripts to extract information associated with the short-cycle plan´views. This information was organized into an analysis matrix to identify categories inductively, individually and manually. Once the categories were identified, grouping information through codes was produced, then a deliberation process was carried out to discriminate possible inconsistencies between the different codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Based on the findings, we can highlight that short-cycle plan helps to improve with a sense of urgency using an operational planning approach. This alternative approach presents an opportunity to translate long term, general titles and abstract goals into manageable tasks and action steps responding rapidly to real-time problems in comparison to year-long plans.Therefore, short cycle planning can be more dynamic, interactive and responsive to authentic improvement needs (Mintrop, 2016), especially for those schools who need to improve quickly. Short-cycle plans typically involve a process of planning and implementation during a 90 day-time period (Meyers and Vangronigen, 2017; Mintrop, 2016). In this process, schools understand the relevance to work with one urgent, specific, measurable, timely and realistic improvement priority rather than to “try to do too many things at once” (Stevenson, 2019). Also, focusing on one urgent and relevant improvement priority reduces the possibility of resource waste and distraction on too many goals and strategies simultaneously (Mintrop, 2016). Thus, schools using short-cycle plans learn that prioritizing is key for the improvement process. To sump up, participants perceive that short-cycle plan as a useful strategy to improve authentically in comparison to year-long approach planning which present at least more problems.

Bickmore DL, Roberts MM and Gonzales MM (2021) How aspiring principals applied course-based learning to develop school improvement plans. Journal of Educational Administration 59(2): 199–214. Caputo A and Rastelli V (2014) School improvement plans and student achievement: Preliminary evidence from the Quality and Merit Project in Italy. Improving Schools 17(1): 72–98. Fernandez KE (2011) Evaluating school improvement plans and their effect on academic performance. Educational Policy 25(2): 338–367. Huber DJ and Conway JM (2015) The effect of school improvement planning on student achievement. Planning and Changing 46(1–2): 56–70. Meyers CV and VanGronigen BA (2019) A lack of authentic school improvement plan development: Evidence of principal satisficing behavior. Journal of Educational Administration 57(3): 261–278. Mintrop R (2016) Design-based School Improvement: A Practical Guide for Education Leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Mintrop, H. and MacLellan, A.M. (2002), “School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation”, Elementary School Journal, Vol. 102 No. 4, pp. 275-300. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J.M. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Stevenson, I. (2019). An improvement plan is not enough—you need a strategy. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(6), 60–64. Strunk KO, Marsh JA, Bush-Mecenas SC, 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. VanGronigen BA and Meyers CV (2020). Short-cycle school improvement planning as a potential organizational change lever: An analysis. Teachers College Record 122(5). 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.