A MODEL FOR PLANNING.PROORAMMMOBOOOEONO ' SYS‘IEMS APPOOAOOO T0 EOOOA‘I‘IONAL ' DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ' IN THAILAND" A Dissertation for the Degree of Ph; D. MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSITY SURAT SILPA‘ANAN 1972 *‘N Ilfliiimliiiliiimiii 1 O z 1 . i" "i '- --'----:c . , ".,_‘._‘ . _‘.. - *f’. ':E" f;- fid‘ 31293 01108 4211 i- .. L, University .25! This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‘ A' MODEL ‘FOR PLANNING-PROGRAMMINS-BUDGETING SYSTEMS APPLICATION TO EDUCATIONAL fi-DBVELOPMENT PLANNING IN THAILAND '4 presented by ‘ Surat Silpa-Anan hes been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Education Mme.» Moor professor Date November 10, 1972 0-7639 .t‘é . 1%2' . ’P V, ((1 a I‘ I ‘ SEFE‘0‘174999 . A. l 5 °' . H I; ABSTRACT A MODEL FOR.PLANNING~PROGRAMMING-BUDGETING SYSTEMS 1APPLICATION TO EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN THAILAND By Surat Silpa-Anan The approaches used in educational planning in Thailand, and other develOping countries as well, have considerable pitfalls. Most of them are merely means of determining educational goals which provide planners magnitudes to aim at; few, if any, give planners adequate ' guidelines for establishing an effective plan to achieve them. It seems necessary to develoP a framework for an intelligent planning approach to facilitate the improvement of the conventional planning procedures. The Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems (PPBS) is a possible alternative. This study is concerned with the development of a PPBS model which can be applied to educational development plan- ning in Thailand. There are five specific objectives: 1. to review educational planning procedures in Thailand, 2. to analyze the main characteristics, elements and procedures of Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems, 3. to develop a model of Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems 'that are related to educational development planning process tand that can readily be used by the Ministry of Education, 'Thailand to accomplish its planning missions, H. ‘to develOp necessary planning documents and their formats, 5- ‘to identify roles and functions of planning-related agencies in educational planning processes in Thailand. Surat Silpa-Anan The methology employed was exploratory and descriptive in nature. lk>theory nor hypothesis was tested. The PPBS model designed was summwhat a theoretical and tentative one. Data and information used were obtained from adhdnistrative sources and governmental reports and library research. Materials pertinent to Thailand were sent from the Educational Planning Division of the Ministry of Education; others were obtained from the University library and from school districts where PPBS was employed. Additional data and information were collected from observations in educational units implementing PPBS in the United States, and interviews with concerned officials in these units. This study assumed that the present educational planning organizer tions would continue to exist. The PPBS model was designed in order to be introduced into the current planning and budgeting cycle. The model utilized the current planning potentials of the country both at local and national levels. Ten major tasks representing key events that have to be accomplished to complete PPBS cycle were designed. Coupled With a rolling planning concept, the PPBS model for preparing a Five~ Year Educational DeveloPment Plan was presented in a PERT network form Showing the flow of data into and out of the predefined processes in the IT? systenland the sequences for completing the various processes. Responsible persons or agencies were assigned to each event. The results obtained in the study led to several recommendations concerning the inStallation and implementation of PPBS in Thailand. A MODEL POR PLANNING-PROGRAMMING-BUDGETING SYSTEMS APPLICATION TO EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN THAILAND By Surat Silpa-Anan A Dissertation Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1972 (4’ gflfe/f3’5r DEDICATION to a school teacher named "Charoon" and a woman named "Boonparma," in the distant village where I was born, in Thailand ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is deeply grateful to a number of individuals who offered and gave him their help, especially to the following: to Dr. David K. Heenan who, through three years as doctoral committee chairman and dissertation director, has provided exactly the right amount of encouragement, challenge, and understanding and is, indeed, the compleat counselor; to Dr. Paul L. Dressel and Dr. Thomas M. Freeman whose support and assistance make it possible to undertake the doctoral program; the privilege of working under such scholars in the Office of Institutional Research has been most valuable; to each member of the candidate's committee: Dr. Cole 8. Brembeck, Dr. Timothy M. Hennessey and Dr. Willard G. Warrington whose scholarly assistance has truly been appreciated; to all those on the staff of the Office of Institutional Research who have willingly been encouraging in any way possible, especially to Ms. Marion M. Jennette; to the Ford Foundation, Bangkok, who enables him to take advan- tage of the study at MSU; to, last but indeed not least, Miss Chaniga Bichaironarongsonggram, the writer's fiance, whose understanding and encouragement in so many ways have meant so very much. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION O O O O O O O O 0 I O O O O O O I O O O O 0 O O O O O AcmOWLEDGMENT s C O O O O O C C O O O O O I C O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 LIST OP APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. V. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rationale for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose and Scope of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Main Purposes ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scape of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE SEARCH PRmEDUE S O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S tudy H. amew or k 0 O C O C C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Data and Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . Presentation of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING PROCEDURES IN THAILAND . . . . . . . . Administrative Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agencies Responsible for Educational Planning . . , . Procedures for Planning at Local Level . . . . . . . . Procedures for Planning at National Level . . . . . . PPBS INSTALLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES PPBS Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of PPBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Adoption of PPBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PPBS Installation and Implementation . . . . . . . . . Problems Confronted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PPBS CONCEPT, COMPONENTS, ELEMENTS AND PROCEDURES . . . . PPBS Concept and Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . PPB S B lement S . O O O C O O C O O O O O O O I O PPBS Procedures for the Development of a Five-Year Plan iv Page ii iii vi vii l—‘ «cocoon-EH 10 l2 12 12 14 16 16 25 28 35 40 40 42 M6 H8 55 60 60 65 80 Chapter VI. ROLLING PLAN FOR THAILAND VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . Conclusion . . . Recommendations . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O PPBS PROCEDURES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FIVE-YEAR Page 96 109 109 111 116 125 180 Figure 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.” 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 LIST OF FIGURES Organization of the Ministry of Education . . . . Agencies Responsible for Educational Planning . Planning Procedures as Depicted by Regional _ Education Planning Project . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Structure for the Preparation of the Third Five—Year Educational DevelOpment Plan Conceptualized PPBS Components and Activities . . PPBS Components within PPB'sysfemsa . . . . . . . Schematic of Activity Areas in the Development Of PPB S O I I O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0 Conceptual Framework of PPBS Procedures for Preparing a Five-Year Plan 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Nature of the Program Structure . . . . . . . . . A Hierarchical Classification Scheme of Program Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Process of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . PPBS Procedures for the Preparation of Rolling Five-Year Educational DeveloPment Plan in Thailand vi Page 22 27 31 36 63 6M 71 82 86 87 93 99 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A.l The Parma City Schools "Seventh Grade Social Studies" Program: Program Goals and Objectives, Program Alternatives and Constraints . . . . . . . . . 125 A.2 Parma City School District Program Structure . . . . . 131 A.3 School District of Philadelphia's Program Areas, Programs, and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 A.u Warwick Public Schools' Program Structure . . . . . . 1N5 A.5 The Parma City Schools "Seventh Grade Social Studies" Program: Predicted Cost-Effectiveness for Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lu7 B. Program Structure for Educational Development in Thailand 0 C C O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 1158 C O PPB S Poms C O C C C O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O I 15 3 D.l Outlines of Changwad Xhonkaen Educational Development, 1970-1976 . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . 171 D.2 Plans and Projects for the Third Five—Year Plan . . . 174 B O Intemiew Guidelines 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 l7 9 vii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY The Problem It is explicitly indicated that Thailand has been employing the 'social demand' and 'manpower requirement' approaches to educational development planning. This has been stated in 3 Five-Year National Economic and Social Development Plans (1961-66, 1967—71, 1972-76). Educators and planning practitioners, in Thailand and other countries alike, are convinced of numerous shortcomings of these planning approaches that affect the educational systems, and critics hasten to point out alleged weaknesses. Three main criticisms are shared by the profes- sionals regarding the social demand approach. Philip Coombs (1970) stated these as follows: (1) it ignores the larger national problem of resource allocation and implicitly assumes that no matter how many resources go to education is their best use for national deve10pment as a whole; (2) it ignores the character and pattern of manpower needed by the economy and can readily result in producing too many of some types and not enough of others; and (3) it tends to over—stimulate popular demand, to underestimate costs, and to lead to a thin spreading of resources over too many Students thereby reducing quality and effectiveness to the point where education becomes a dubious investment. (pages 267-8, 286) Many economists prefer the 'manpower requirement' approach to educational planning. While the broad logic of this approach is hard to argue with, Philip Coombs (1970) points out, its practical applica— tion reveals a number of flaws: first, it gives the educational planners only limited guidance. It has nothing to say about primary education (which is not considered to be 'work-connected') though by implication it suggests curbing the expansion of primary education until the nation gets richer. Most manpower studies confine their attention to 'high level' manpower needed by the 'modern sector' (that is, mostly by urban employment). Thus planners are given no useful clues about the additional requirement of the peOple who would con- stitute the vast majority to the nation's future labor force, namely, semi—skilled and unskilled workers in the cities and the vast majority of workers who live in rural areas. Second, the employment classifi- cations and manpower ratios (e.g. the desirable ratio of engineers to technicians, doctors to nurses) used in most manpower studies in develoPing countries, as well as the assumed educational qualifications corresponding to each category of job, are usually borrowed from the industrialized economies and do not fit the realities of the less developed ones. Educational plans based on such faulty assumptions could result in the mispreparation and/or over-preparation of many students for the jobs they are meant to fill. A third difficulty is the impossi- bility of making reliable forecasts of manpower requirements far enough ahead to be of real value to educational planning, because of myriad economic, technological and other uncertainties involved. The more refined the categories (e.g., 'electrical engineers' rather than 'engineers of all types') and the longer the range the forecast, the fuzzier and the less trustworthy the estimates become. (Coombs, 1970: uo-ul; Chirikos 8 Wheeler, 1968: 169; Folger 8 Nam, 196u: 19-33; Anderson 8 Bowman, 1964: 4—M6; Miner, 1967: 38-56 and Cash, 1965: 33-u7). In early 1969, Mark Blaug emphasized the inadequacy of these two approaches for Thailand. (Blaug, 1969) He suggested that the 'rate-of— return' be considered as an alternative. This approach, however, carries several weaknesses, such as: (1) the basic cost data are weak (loosely) and critics take the estimated income foregone by students, especially by students from places where heavy unemployment is endemic; (2) concerning with calculation of future benefits, the future income differentials, correlated with educational differentials, the implicit assumption being that they will remain constant in the future; this is very dubious assumption and (3) this method measures only the direct economic bene- fits and takes no account of indirect economic benefits and non-economic ones. This is a fair-sized exclusion. (Coombs, 1970: ua-uu; Blaug, 1957: 159, 268) None of these approaches, it is now clear, provides an adequate basis by itself for educational planning. (Blaug, 1967: 269; Coombs, 1970: #5) To add insult to injury, the three approaches are merely means of determining educational goals which provide educational planners magnitudes to aim at. Few, if any, give_planners adequate guidelines for establishing an effectiv§_plan to achieve them. What, then, should be a possible alternative for Thailand? What should be an alternative that provides a framework for intelligent planning which is a substantial improvement over conventional planning proce- dures? The investigator proposes Planning-Programming-Budget Systems as a possible alternative and hence to be studied. Rationale for the Study The underlying premise for the Planning-Programming-Budget Systems (PPBS) approach is that it appears to represent an improvement over existing planning techniques. (Hartley, 1968: u) The rationale for this study is to attempt to provide a framework for intelligent planning which is a substantial improvement over conventional planning procedures. A PPBS provides a rational basis for the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing programs which is the heart of the planning mission. The advantage of the proposed approach over traditional plan— ning procedures is that, in the new approach, emphasis is placed upon the outputs, or programs of the schools, rather than on the inputs that are necessary to support these programs. (Hartley, 1968: u) Philip Coombs, (1970: 53-5”), Frederick Harbison, (1967: 25-26), Robert Chartrand, (1969: 9-5, 11), UNESCO (1970: 1u—15, 21-22), OECD (1968: 134) and many others have encouraged research on and consideration of applying the new management techniques such as PPBS and other systems techniques to long-range educational planning. Wilber Steger (in Curtis 1969) points out the pressing reasons for the consideration of PPBS: To focus attention on major issues for education; to introduce analysis routinely into comparison of alternative resource allocation; to provide information about future as well as current costs and benefits; to present agency budgets in terms of meaningful activity structure; to save and focus the decision-making time to high officials; to make meaningful comparisons between government and private market progress. (pages uz-us) The potential of PPBS on long-range planning is described by David Novick: "For more than twenty-five years I have been developing a management tool--Program Budgeting--which is designed to strengthen an organization's capacity to do long-range planning and to provide a systematic method for resolving major resource allocation issues. Program Budgeting--or Planning-Programming-Budgeting abbreviated as PPB--focuses on basic function of management, which is to use the organization's available resources in the way that will be most effec— tive in meeting its goals." (Novick 1968: 1-2) He emphasizes that the relationship between program and budget, and planning, programming and budgeting merits more complete description. (p. 11) This point is substantiated by John Due as excerpted by Irwin (1968): These systems (PPBS) seek to integrate long- range planning of government activities and programming of specific activities with annual budgeting, making use of the program budget structure and of various quantitative techni- ques in the evaluation of proposals. Systems analysis and cost-benefit techniques are employed with quantification of costs and benefits to aid in the selection of the best alternatives. This approach seeks to aid in defining the goals and in choosing among the goals, in specifying alternative programs to attain the goals, in choosing the best alter- natives, and, subsequently, in measuring per- formance. Planning is extended forward for several years, rather than focusing attention on current year, with reconsideration of the overall plan at frequent intervals as the specific budget for each year is developed. Programming involves that statement of rela- tionship of inputs and outputs, under various alternatives, to accomplish the desired objec- tives. (page 3) According to Vincent Moore (in Curtis, 1969), the significance of PPBS to comprehensive planning is that: . . . it can serve truly comprehensive plan- ning (including economic and social planning as well as physical planning) as capital programming has served our traditional physi- cal deveIOpment planning. The principles are essentially the same and PPBS incorporates the capital programming methodology, adding to it the other resources allocations required for government program service which do not require capital plant for Operation (such as many welfare programs and economic development pro- grams), but for which manpower and fiscal support and allocations are required. Obviously, the PPBS concept hints at some radical re—evolution of the organizational locus, operation scope, and internal structure of both the comprehensive planning and budgeting agencies. While changes are probably in the offering, no general policy can be set forth, at least at this time. It may be that many comprehensive and social planning agencies established with whom they have to com- pete like any other old-time agency. It may be that budget agencies which have been plodding along with tunnel-vision focus on short-term budget execution and control suddenly find themselves accounting groups for new program- ming and resource allocation agencies. Or it may be that both budget and planning func- tions become merged in a single agency. (page 2) Whatever the future brings, Vincent Moore states in the same source, ". . . it is safe to say that PPBS concept, if not prematurely killed in the stampede of organizational panic, will go down in the history as one of the most revolutionary devices ever introduced in government." (Curtis, 1969: 2) One of the strengths of PPBS is that it is capable of cutting across organizational boundaries, drawing together the information needed by decision-makers without regard to divisions in operating authority among jurisdictions. The advantage for planning is obvious. A program can be examined as a whole, contra- dictions are more likely to be recognized, and there is a context--otherwise lacking--for consideration of changes that would alter or cut across existing agency lines. (David Novick, 1968: 9-5) However, program budgeting is not a panacea, Brent Bradley (1967) stated before the California Assembly Hearing: . . . it will not achieve wonders. Its success is probably to be measured more in terms of bad decisions prevented, rather than optimal choices made. Whatever its limitations, how- ever, program budgeting must be considered in light of its alternatives. For the time being, program budgeting has much to offer and is worthy of your support. (page 11) The available literature is simply in describing what PPBS is and/or should be: it suggests some of the ways it might be applied to education: but it is woefully lacking in any discussion of practical application to educational planning. For educational management, there is the need to strengthen training and research in educational planning itself. (UNESCO, 1970: 21) UNESCO suggests that research in the problems and methods of educational planning and development needs organization. If available research talent and resources are to have the greatest impact, they cannot be scattered aimlessly in all directions at once: they must be concentrated on selected problems with sufficient intensity to break through to significant new knowledge and practice. Much of the effort must be directed to solving the specific practical problems and needs of prac- ticing educational planners and managers in the shortest possible time. (UNESCO, 1970: 22) Such is the main purpose of this study. Specifically, this study aims to provide a framework for the implementation of PPBS in the Thai educational system after which the following objectives, like that developed by Wilber Steger, (in Curtis 1969: us-un) can be sought: 1. promote an effective degree of bureaucratic centralization as well as "creative decen— tralization," 2. relax constraints related to specific adminis- tration's political fate, 3. increase awareness of diversity of organized and unorganized, governmental and non- governmental, influences, u. facilitate adcess to top government and non— government interests, 5. facilitate image of independence of thought from present administration, 6. overcome an image of infeasible "do-gooding" that planners sometimes have, 7. increase the effectiveness of working relations with various other operating agencies, 8. facilitate the ability to order priorities meaningfully, 9. create a technical source of power in decision—making, 10. routinize the notion of comprehensive com- parison of alternatives, 11. increase the freedom from civil service restrictions and limitations on staff func- tions in public appearances. Therefore it is reasonable to state that it is rational to apply the PPBS techniques to educational develoPment planning, and that the results of this study will serve as a framework for intelligent planning which is a substantial improvement over conventional plan- ning procedures in Thailand. Purposes and Scope of the Study_ Main Purposes 1. To deve10p PPB systems that are related to educational develOpment planning in Thailand, 2. To develop long—range educational planning procedures that can solve major develoPment problems of Thailand, 3. To explore methods of applying new planning techniques to educational develOpment which coupled with other findings of other studies conducted in different set- tings will contribute to the development of a more comprehensive and more useful theory of educational planning than that which now exists. Specific Objectives 1. To review educational planning procedures in Thailand, 2. To analyze the main characteristics, elements and procedures of Planning—Programming-Budgeting Systems, 3. To develop a model of Planning-Programming—Budgeting Systems that are related to educational develOpment planning process and that can readily be used by the Ministry of Education, Thailand to accomplish its planning missions, H. To develop necessary planning documents and their formats, 5. To identify roles and functions of planning related agencies in educational planning process in Thailand. Scope of the Study The study is limited to an investigation and subsequent develop- ment of a theoretical model for initiating the principles of Planning- Programming-Budgeting Systems in the public educational development planning for Ministry of Education, Thailand. The study is primarily concerned with investigating new aspects of a systems approach. It will be an exPloratory and descriptive in nature. Since the experience of the educational institutions with PPBS is still new, and practically non-existent in Thailand, this analysis will of necessity be somewhat theoretical and tentative. The study is not intended to be experimental in design. No specific theory nor hypothesis is to be tested. Data gathered from 10 the study, however, could hopefully be classified into sections from which hypotheses may be developed over time. Assumptions of the Study 1. It is assumed that planning is desirable and a technical process 2. It is assumed that the present educational planning organizations will continue to exist. A PPBS will be introduced into a current planning and budgeting cycle with special attention to the fit. Changes in the currently organizational system may or may not be called for depending upon the analytical results. Definition of Terms Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS): is a management system involving the selection or identification of the overall, long- range objectives of the organization and the systematic analysis of , various courses of action in terms of relative costs and benefits (Planning); deciding on specific courses of action to be followed in carrying out planning decisions (PrOgramming); and translating planning and programming decisions into specific financial plans (Budgeting). (Gulko, 1972: 119) Educational Planning; is the organized, conscious and continual exercising of foresight in determining the policy, priorities and costs of educational system, having due regard for economic and political realities, for the systems potential for growth, and for the needs of the country and of the pupils served by the system. (Beeby, 1967: 13; Waterston, 1959: 25) RollingPlanning: this term is used interchangeably with "cycling planning." It is a system of revising a multi-year plan at the end of each year and, as the first year of the plan is drOpped, estimates, 11 targets and projects for another year is added to the last year. (Waterston, 1969: 139-191) The plan derived from this system is called "rolling plan," or "cycling plan." System: a system is an integrated assembly of interacting ele- ments, designed to carry out cOOperatively a predetermined function. (Flagle, Huggins and Roy, 1960: 58-59) PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique): is a method of defining, planning, coordinating and controlling what must be done to successfully accomplish the objectives of a project within the pre— scribed time limits. (Smith, 1970; Federal Electric Corp., 1967: l) CHAPTER I I RESEARCH PROCEDURES Study Framework This study is an investigation and subsequent deveIOpment of a hierarchical model for initiating the principles of Planning-Programming- Budgeting Systems in the public education development in Thailand. It is primarily concerned with investigating new aspects of the systems approach. The study utilizes the technique referred to as a content analysis. (Borg, 1963: 256-260; Holste, 1969) This technique is reported to be beneficial in descriptive studies for use by adminis- trators, and of particular value in educational situations (Mauly, 1963: 281-282) such as is the present study trying to accomplish. The study attempts to systematize the construction of structure which identifies the different elements and variables of which the phenomenon to be studied, namely PPBS, is composed and by which it is shaped. The study also relates the theoretical properties of PPBS to the con- temporary practice of educational planning for national deve10pment. Due to its exploratory and descriptive nature and the fact that no cause and effect relationship are expected to be discovered, no statistical hypotheses are generated for this study. Data and Information Collection To encompass the Objectives of the study, data and information were collected from administrative sources and government reports of Thailand which were obtained directly from the Educational Planning Division of the Ministry of Education. Other materials pertinent to 12 13 the study were obtained from the University Library, personal collection, and from school districts and other educational institutions implemen- ting PPBS in the United States. In-depth information on PPBS installa— tion and implementation was obtained from observations in educational units which were implementing PPBS and interviews with officials con- cerned in these units. No formal statistically oriented sampling plan was used in this study but a selected sample was used for the observations and inter— views. Sample of educational units were selected on the basis of stages of PPBS implementation, namely "fully implemented," "implemen— ting," and "preparing to implement." Three such units were visited: (1) Office of Planning—Programming-Budgeting, New York City Board of Education; (2) The Office for Program Budgeting, the School District of the City of Detroit; and (3) Office of Management Service, Michigan State Department of Education. The Office of Planning—Programming-Budgeting of New York City Board of Education has three sub-units-—Systems Planning and Program Analysis, Program Budget Operations 8 Review, and Management Informa- tion. This office is one of the pioneers in PPBS implementation. The Office for Program Budgeting of the School DiStrict of the City of Detroit is a one-year old office whose main attempt was aimed at the second end of the PPBS principle, program budgeting. The Michigan State Department of Education is attempting to apply PPBS techniques in allocating resources for educational deveIOpment on statewide basis. During the visits, the investigator observed the Operations of PPBS and interviewed the officials concerned. Twelve officials were 14 interviewed. While collecting data and information, the investigator attended the 1972 National Conference for Educators under the direction of Dr. Harry J. Hartley and Center for Educational Research and Field Services, School of Education, New York University, during April 28—29, 1972. The main theme was "Instructional Objectives and Program Evalua— tion: Planning-Programming—Budgeting Systems." About one hundred and fifty PPBS users and educators from school districts and from other educational institutions throughout the United States and other countries attended the conference. The conference had the following operational objectives: (1) identify and bring together school districts that are using PPBS in instructional programs, (2) provide an information exchange for PPBS users, (3) examine PPBS documents, forms and materials develOped by districts across the nation, (A) direct questions on specific problems to panels of experts with Operational experience, (5) identify "next steps" for school districts, (6) discuss possible misuses and pitfalls with systems procedures in education, (7) evaluate current PPBS activities in local school instructional programs, and (8) strike a balance between the "perfect and the possible" with PPBS. Ten of the participants were selected to be interviewed. Questions asked are recorded in Appendix E. Presentation of Findings The presentation of the findings of this study was based on sources of authority, references and the investigator's judgment. In order to avoid undue subjectivity, the findings were examined and validated by, in addition to the research director, four knowledgeable faculty members at Michigan State University who served as judges to 15 attest to the procedures of the study and its findings. One of the faculty was familiar with Thailand and knowledgeable in PPBS; three of them were knowledgeable in PPBS. First, the conventional planning procedures for developing a five-year educational development plan in Thailand were described. This step provided a framework for the application of PPBS and the improvement of planning procedures in the nation. Next, the study analyzed the concepts, elements, and variables which the PPBS was composed and by which it was shaped. Practices concerning the installation and implementation of PPBS in public schools in the United States were also examined. This step summarized the concepts, components, and elements of PPBS and devised PPBS procedures for the preparation of a five-year educational develOpment plan. Using the preceeding findings and analyses, this study constructed a PPBS model for the preparation of a Five-Year Educational Development Plan in Thailand by incorporating the concept of "rolling planning" into the model. Planning documents were designed for use. The expected end-product of this study was a procedural manual developed on the principles of Planning—Programming-Budgeting Systems to guide planning practitioners in Thailand in establishing, implementing, and evaluating a Five—Year Educational Development Plan. CHAPTER III CURRENT PLANNING PROCEDURES IN THAILAND Instead of giving exhaustive detail an outline of education in Thailand (data readily available from other sources, such as Educational Information, 1960; Wronski and Swasdi Panich, 1966; Joint Task Force, 1964; Chandawimol, 1963), this chapter will present only that information which is germane to an understanding of the forces in the Thai educa- tional system which either impede or enhance educational develOpment planning. The present administrative structure and the formulating procedure of Third Five-Year Educational DevelOpment Plan are described. Insight into the existing planning procedures in Thailand is the object of this chapter. Administrative Organizations In Thailand, education is both centralized and decentralized. This apparent paradox comes about because of the different agencies to which responsibility for education is assigned. (Harper and Wudhipreecha, 1968: 1) Administrative responsibilities are split between central and local authorities. Centralized Control The administrative responsibility for elementary education rests primarily with the Ministry of Interior. However, the Ministry of Education retains responsibility for the technical and pedagogical aspects of elementary education, as well as complete control over some #00 out of total of almost 300,000 elementary schools operated as 16 17 experimental institutions. The Ministry of Education also administers secondary (vocational and academic) and adult general education, as well as technical institutes and teacher training institutions at the post-secondary level. Private schools are under the Ministry of Education's supervision and control. Trade skill training programs are offered by the Department of Labor and the Department of Community DevelOpment of the Ministry of Interior. A National Youth Promotion Committee was recently established under the Office of the Prime Minister, to develop and coordinate rural youth develOpment programs. The universities exercise considerable autonomy, and they are only nominally subject to control by various agencies, such as the Office of the Prime Minister to which all universities are formally responsible. The National Education Council's (in the Office of the Prime Minister) approval is needed for organizational and curricula changes. It is also responsible for the review of university budget. Private colleges are jointly supervised and controlled by the National Education Council and Ministry of Education. At central level, the three organizations--Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Education, and Office of the National Education Council of the Office of the Prime Minister, work closely together in policy—making and plan formulation for educational development under their responsi- bilities throughout the country. Decentralized Control A step toward decentralizing control of primary schools was made in 1963 where responsibility for primary schools that were located in municipal boundaries was transferred from the Ministry of Education 18 to the local municipalities. In 1966, the government massively decen- tralized by transferring the control of approximately 26,000 primary schools from the Ministry of Education to the local Changwad Administra- tive Authority under the Ministry of Interior. As in the municipalities, the local changwad administrative authorities are responsible for financing and administering the schools. Most of financial resources, however, are provided by the central government through the Ministry of Interior. For both types of primary schools (schools under the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Interior) the Ministry of Educa~ tion continues to have centralized responsibility for curriculum and technical contents. (Educational Planning Division, 1970b: 2; Harper and Wudhipreecha, 1968: 2) To carry out the national overall policy the Ministry of Education serves as a coordinator between the Changwad Administrative Authorities and the municipalities in the development and harmonization of education at the local level. Harper and Wudhipreecha (1968) summarize the situation as follows: Primary education in many respects is decentralized. Responsibility for its administration, Operation, and financing is vested in 71 changwad administra- tive authorities. At the same time what is taught in schools, is still centralized in the Ministry of Education. Thus Thailand is reaching for the best of two organizational world: from decentrali- zation,involvement in and support of local educa- tion by people; from centralization, quality in the curriculum that can best be achieved by bringing to bear the best resources in the whole nation. (page 2) At local level, education is carried out through a system that blankets the Kingdom at three different levels. There are 12 regional education offices, each headed by a Regional Education Inspector; 19 71 changwad (province) education offices, each administered by a Changwad Education Officer; and 57M or more amphurs, (district) each led by an Amphur Education Officer. Regional Education Inspector A regional education inspector is charged with giving leadership to the improvement of education in his section of the nation, particularly in adapting education to the special needs and Opportunities found locally. He inspects and supervises the schools and oversees inservice-training for teachers in his region. Each regional education inspector is re- sponsible for an average of six changwads. He is appointed by the Under-Secretary of State for Education. He is not "line officer" but a "staff personnel;" along with his super- visory staffs, he works in constant cooperation and communication with changwad education officers. Changwad Education Officer Changwad education officer is responsible for all educational activities in his territory. The changwad education officer is respon- sible for: (1) the establishment, maintenance, and discontinuance of schools, (2) the adoption of textbooks, (3) the appointment and dis- missal of teachers, (9) the increasing of teachers' salaries, (5) the planning for the development and maintenance of education in the changwad, (6) the inspection and supervision of all schools, (7) the allocation of monies to local schools, and (8) the expansion of upper primary (grades 5, 6, 7) schools, and (9) the preparation of the changgad educational budget. (Harper and Wudhipreecha, 1968: 3-9) 20 The changwad education officer is appointed by the Office of Under-Secretary of State for Education, Ministry of Education. He theoretically reports to the Ministry of Education through his regional education inspector, but this policy has never been followed in practice; the regional education inspector exerts no direct influence over the changwad education officer. Changwad division heads in each changwad, such as changwad education officer, changwad agriculture officer, changwad economic officer, changwad. finance officer, changwad community development officer, and changwad sanitation officer, sit in "council" as an autonomous body responsible only to the governor. This council of division heads is known as the Changwad Administrative Authority. Since 1966, the changwad administra- tive authority in each changwad has been charged with responsibility for compulsory education in all aspects. Before 1966, local education officers received policy directives for the operation and financing of schools directly from the Ministry of Education. Now policy determina- tions can be made at the changwad level. The roles of the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Interior have supposingly become to be one of making suggestions and giving advice. In practice, however, the two Ministries still have very strong control over changwads. Amphur Education Officer His responsibilities for educational development and maintenance are like those of changwad education officers. The amphur education officer's responsibilities simply pertain to a smaller geographical area, the amphur (district), which is one of several (an average of eight) in the changwad. Being appointed by the Ministry of Education, 21 he is delegated and relied upon by the changwad education officer and reports directly to him. The amphur education officer has authority in his amphur for such crucial educational decisions as: (1) the establishment of local schools, (2) the Operation of local schools, (3) the enforcement of compulsory attendance law, (A) the transfer of pupils from one school to another, (5) the preparation of the educational budget, (6) the inspection and supervision of local schools, and (7) the allocation of monies and materials for schools. (Harper and Wudhipreecha, 1968: A) Since the Ministry of Education and its various departments have a major role in the development planning for the country, more details of its administrative structure are presented here. Ministry of Education Organization Administrative relationships within the Ministry of Education are illustrated in Figure 3.1; this organization chart shows that the Ministry of Education is composed of two offices and eight depart— ments. The Minister of Education is a political appointee and sits on the Cabinet where he represents the interests of education and edu- cators in decisions involving national policy. His "official" rela— tionship to the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet is that of educational advisor, and he is held responsible for execution of directives issued by the Cabinet which affect education. The Minister's Secretary and staff are responsible for assisting the Minister in performance of his duties—-many of which are ceremonial, ZOHH humvnooom «o no no mo 1 «O mo «0 mo uaoauuwaoa unassummon usoauuunon uaoauuomon ucoauumaon usoauuoaon uaoauuonoa unassumaoa 22 _ 1 a .fi 1 . H L 11 11 1 _ muooammo aoauwosvm Honoqwom NHIW “ ouooammo aoauouavm vasmaanu Hm H sowow>wo coama>ao dogma>wn unannoam GMHMH>MQ owuosuowcm oaoauaaom cowoa>wn cowoq>an , oaoauoosvu a uH o eaoauousvm Hosuouwu sundown Huuusou r - - _ 11 H 1 r11 .h 1 , _ 1 - —1 11 1‘ H1 - dowuaosvm you ououm mo huououoomluowaa 1 3553.: of 3 m1 - r . huuuouoo saw no oowmmb _ H a #1 manna Shrew soauouavm mo appease: 23 social, cultural and/or representational. Responsibility for coordina— tion of program execution with other government agencies may be assigned by the Minister to his Secretary, as may duties connected with preparing speeches, answering correspondence and writing reports. Khuru Sapha (Teachers' Council) was created by law in 1945, and all school teachers are required to become members. This government— Sponsored professional organization has as its primary "Official” functions: (1) advisement to the Minister on methods of improving teacher welfare, (2) consultation with Ministry officials in develop- ment of elementary and secondary in-service training programs, (3) provision of health and other fringe benefits, etc. The Executive Board of Khuru Sapha approves the appointment, promotion, transfer and termination of members and is also charged with raising academic standards of teachers. This organization also publishes three monthly professional journals. The Under—Secretary of State for Education has responsibility for overall management of the national education establishment; his is the highest ranking professional civil service position in the Ministry of Education. Whereas the Minister of Education is a political appointee and his duties are largely representational in nature, the Under-Secretary is expected to confine his activities to planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, staffing and controlling activities of the agency. The latter is charged with coordinating of program activities within the Ministry and cooperation with other government agencies in resolution of problems associated with educa— tion in which these other offices may have interest. The Office of 24 Under-Secretary of State for Education is made of six divisions: Central, Finance, External Relations, Educational Information, Cultural and Educational Planning Divisions. These divisions, to- gether with two Deputy Under—Secretaries of State for Education, comprise the Secretariat of the Ministry. Responsibility for Operational management of education and educational service functions rests with eight departments within the Ministry: 1. Department of Elementary and Adult Education 2. Department of SecOndary Education 3. Department of Vocational Education 4. Department of Teacher Training 5. Department of Physical Education 6. Department of Educational Techniques 7. Department of Religious Affairs 8. Department of Fine Arts Collectively, these departments are charged with meeting the professional needs of regional, provincial, district and local educators and education officers. Specialized staffs within these eight departments provide educational leaderShip, business management, technical and other services to subordinate levels. Each department is under the supervision of a Director-General, a secretary and chiefs of specialized divisions. Divisions, which vary in number from department to department, depending upon the functions assigned and/or performed, are in turn subdivided into sections, each directed by a section head. 25 Agencies Responsible for Educational Planning_ Agencies responsible for educational planning in Thailand can be conceptualized as two levels-~national and local. 1. National Level Five governmental agencies are responsible for educational plan- ning at this level: The National Economic DevelOpment Board (NEDB), The National Education Council (NEC), the Bureau of Budget (BOB), the Ministry of Education (MOE), and the Ministry of Interior (MOI). The National Economic DevelOpment Board (NEDB), among other func- tions, is responsible for coordinating the overall educational develop— ment plan (Education Sector) with the national social and economic development plans. The Board is also responsible for allocating develOpment budget for education. (Educational Planning Division, 1970a: 2; 1970c: 322; NEDB Act, 1959: 3—5) It is the highest plan— ning agency within the nation. The National Education Council (NEC) is responsible for formu- lating and defining overall educational policies and develOpment pro- grams so as to comply with the national develOpment plan (Educational Planning Division, 1970c: 322), and for considering and working out "coordination of educational projects and plans of all ministries, public bodies, departments, changwad administrative authorities, and municipalities so as to comply with national develOpment plan." (NEC Act, 1969: 3) This office also serves as the coordinator among all higher education institutions throughout the country. 26 According to the Educational Planning Division (1970a), the Educational Planning Division of the Ministry of Education: serves as the representative of the Ministry of Education in the part of the national education planning; serves as the center for making opera- tion plan with the cooperation of different de— partments within the Ministry of Education; assists the regions and provinces in educational planning at the local level; serves as the center of Ministry of Education in (a) collecting data, figures and statistics of education, and (b) analyzing differ- ent projects of the Ministry of Education before forwarding them to outside the Ministry; analyz- ing all the pr0posed budgets in education; studying and analyzing all problems related to educational planning and economics of education; serving as the coordinator between regional education inspectors and the local administrative officials in educational planning. (pages 1-2) The Bureau of Budget (BOB) of the Office of the Prime Minister is represented in the Executive Committee of the National Economic Development Board during the Five-Year Plan Operation. It joins the Board in considering the overall fiscal plans and policies. The Bureau also supervises and controls the educational budget during plan implementation phases. (Bureau of Budget, 1966: 88) The Local Education Division of the Ministry of Interior serves as a coordinator in fulfilling the Ministry's policy on compulsory. education planning. The main planning tasks which are considered as technical contents, however, are performed by the Ministry of Education and the National Education Council at national level and by the changwad administrative authorities at the local level. See Figure 3.2 2. Local Level Planning for educational develOpment at local rests with, as mentioned earlier, three network offices--regional, changwad, and Ministry of Interior 2'7 l uotnsznstutmpv Office of the Ministry of Education {9301 ;o 'ndaa Aassazaas-Japun JO 391330 931v aura ;o °3daq BJIGJJV "‘1 snotfittau go '3daq ---santtuq551"" [snotnsonpg 3° '3daa [ uotnsonpg ""‘ Ivorsfiua so :3daa i | . I__..____L __ __ .1 __ __._1 __...__L_.._ _..J _.l.._.J Sututezl Jaqasal go 'Jdaa4 l uotnsonpg IBUOIJBDOA JO 'Jdafl “01393“P3 ntnpv .— pus Aisnuamata JO °3daq notasanpg Azspuoaas go '3daa 'IIT Itounoo F“‘ uotasonpg Isuotasn pzsoa‘nuemdotanaq atmouoog Isuotaeu l L_._.._._L __ _. .1... I. .J._ __ __ __ .. L_A aeflpna ;o fleeing I Prime Minister pusmmoo "" Antanaes Isuotasu ___ uotsstmmoa °°IAJ3S IIATO ___ :uamdoIaAeq {sing paaszataaav National Level Local Level Regional Education Offices 12 Changwad Education Offices AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR EDUCATIONAL PLANNING FIGURE 3.2 28 amphur, according to functions designated. Details of their functions will be explained under these headings: procedures for planning at local level, and procedures for planning at national level. Procedures for Planning at Local Level The Ministry of Education had, in 1963, moved to establish the Educational Planning Division (EPD) in the Office of Under-Secretary of State for Education. Putting the EPD in that office was done primarily to enable it to serve all the departments of the Ministry of Education in its studies and recommendations. As the EPD came to see how essential good planning was at all levels, it proved fortunate to be located in the office that is responsible for amphur, changwad and regional education officers. The preparation of the First and Second National Education Development Plans (1961-1966 and 1967—1971) took place at the central headquarters and was focused on the national needs. The aggregate approach tended to give little attention to problems which were unique to particular regions when regional Officers had no contribution at plan formulation period. Regions and locals had no full understanding of plan implementation and no participation in budget prOposals. (EPD, 1971: 323) In responding to the problems, the Educational Planning Division, with technical assistance from Michigan State University, launched a District Planning Project (DPP) early in 1967. It was so designated because the District (amphur) was the unit in which the facts were collected and for which the plans were formulated. The project focused on the principle of two-way planningf—"bottom—up" and 29 "top-down." The main purpose was to encourage planning activities both at local and national levels. This could hOpefully insure wide par- ticipation through a democratic process; the involvement of the various central government agencies at the center, regional, provincial, dis— trict and school levels could improve the amount of vertical partici— pation. In addition, participation could be increased directly by involving regular committee members, staff members and specialists at each level or indirectly by using consultants. One amphur was selected to make a pilot study. During the remainder of 1967-68, twelve amphurs (one from each region) joined the project. The objectives of the project were: (1) to provide people at local levels with data and the ideas that will promote local planning and wise decision-making, (2) to help build the desire and capability for local planning on the part of those who make decisions, and (3) to develop materials and processes that will be useful guides in the collection of data, the handling of data, and the use of data to reveal Iroblems and to form decisions. --Harper and Wudhipreecha, 1968: 20 The changyad and regional education officers, at their annual meeting in June 1968 at Chiengmai, a northern province, showed great interest in the speedy adaptation of the project toward meeting changyad needs. At this meeting it was agreed that each province would set up its own educational plan. The Educational Planning Division agreed to provide technical assistance to all provinces. The District Planning Project was then changed to the "Regional Education Planning Project." According to Educational Planning Division (1970c), the purposes of the project were three—fold: 30 (1) to encourage each province to establish its own educational plan within 2-3 years, (2) to encourage each province to establish its educa- tional plan in harmony with National Economic and Social Development Plan, National Education DevelOpment Plan, as well as its own socio- economic conditions, and (3) to prOvide pro- vincial educational plans as basis for estab- lishing the Third Five-Year National Economic and Social Development Plan (1972-1976)-- Education Sector, of which the Ministry of Education and the National Education Council will be in charge. (page 325) ' The planning procedures used for the Regional Education Planning Project are displayed in Figure 3.3. The procedures can be conceptu- alized as a six-step process: Step 1: Survey forms design Step 2: Technical training Step 3: Educational survey and diagnosis Step 4: Plan writing workshOp Step 5: Plan integration Step 6: Plan implementation Survenyorms Design The Educational Planning Division staffs devised eight survey forms for collecting data at the provincial level. They were forms on (1) pupils--enrollment, age group, attendance, examination results; (2) teachers-~principals' questionnaire, personnel's questionnaire; (3) facilities; (4) equipment; (5) finance; (6) expenditures; (7) adult education; and (8) data display. All forms were designed in such a way that they were easy to read, to follow and were economical, minimum time consuming and processable by hand. Forms 1—7 were data gathering tools 31 Cabinet National Economic Bureau Of Budget Development Board (NEDB) National Education Universities _ Council : :" “' ' (ugc) .1 I I I l l Ministry of Education Ministry of (Ed'l Planning Division) ;i Interior (EPD) 11mm___ I l P R O V I N C I A L L E V E L = I 1 Survey Forms Technical Educational Plan Writing Plan Design Training Survey and Workshop Implementation 1: Lashes“ __. EDP designs 1) 2-3 super- Provincial -Involve forms: visors from self-study teachers -Pupils each province -Use forms 1 1 i -Teachers trained in: provided pr nc pa 8’ -Facilities -P1anning proz. officers, Approved -Equipment concepts -Follow zip urfgguca- i apa- -Finance -Data collect techniqu eizczed cers, mzfitition -Expenditure processing, as citizens -Adult Educat 0 analysis trained h h .t -Data Display -P1an writing t roug ou province :153I22::i is; -Sectora1 plans regional edu- and provincial cation officers plan FIGURE 3.3 PLANNING PROCEDURES AS DEPICTED BY REGIONAL EDUCATION PLANNING PROJECT Source: Silpa—Anan, 1969 32 while form 8 was a complete data display (summarized from forms 1-7) designed to be used as a "planning document" in subsequent steps. Technical Training There were two technical seminars involved: (1) seminar for planning technicians, and (2) seminar for changyad education officers and regional education inspectors. Two to three provincial education supervisors were selected from 1‘! each province to be trained in educational planning techniques. These supervisors became provincial "planning technicians." The training seminar was organized cooperatively among Educational Planning Division, ministerial inspectors, regional education inspectors, and changyad education officers. There were five seminars of the kind, five days each, to cover the whole country. The seminar contents covered from general areas such as educational planning concepts to specific ones such as techniques of data collec— tion, processing, analysis, and plan writing. The main purposes were to enable the supervisors to precisely use the survey forms, and to familiarize them to the new concept of educational planning. A one-week seminar for changwad education officers and regional education inspectors was conducted in Bangkok by the Ministry of Education. The main purpose was to familiarize these officials with the concepts and techniques of educational planning and decision— making so that they could provide proper leadership in the planning process. The officers had opportunities to meet national educators, planners, economists, and social scientists. Case studies of selected provinces were used during the seminar. 33 Educational Survey and Diagnosis Planning technicians conducted a self-study survey by sending forms provided by Educational Planning Division and following guide- lines as trained. Seven survey forms were sent to schools to gather needed data. The complete forms were then sent back to the changyad education office where they were edited, processed, and analyzed by l the planning technicians. The finished data were transferred to a single compact form-~Data Display which, afterward, would be used as a "planning document." The Data Display was a lOS—page document showing summarized data in all aspects of education within the province--pupils, teachers, facilities, equipment, finance, expendi- tures, and adult education. Data presented included both existing conditions and five-year projections. (EPD, 1968) The processing of data was done by hand using an abacus and/or a simple calculating machine. Plan—Writing Workshgpj Next was a planning-writing workshop at province. Participants included such persons as teachers, principals, amphur education officers, changwad education officer, provincial education super- visors, regional education supervisors, selected citizens, and members of the changwad administrative authority council. After a general assembly, the participants were divided into several groups to form committees. Each committee was responsible for specific "sectoral plans," normally seven: lower elementary education, upper elementary education, academic secondary education, vocational secondary education, adult education, and promotion services. 34 Each sectoral committee identified problems, set objectives, identified alternatives for each objective, identified available resources and made decisions for further courses of action. The member of the committee established actions into "project" form. The final product of each sector, then, was a combination of pro- jects. Projects were, in reality, plans for each sector. A sectoral plan normally included such information as (1) existing conditions, (2) problems, (3) direction of action, (4) targets, and (5) sets of projects. Each project within a sectoral plan typically followed the format designed by the Educational Planning Division. It was as followed: 1. Project title 2. Problem 3. Objectives 4. Course(s) of action 5. Responsible authorities 6. Required budget 7. Follow up and evaluation method After sectoral plans had been finished, the participants re- assembled to put together the overall provincial plan. Each committee reported its plan. Reaction, questions from all participants were entertained. Adjustments were made and plans were approved. The combination of sectoral plans developed into provincial master plan. The plan was officiated by the governor's signature before it was 35 presented to the Ministry of Education for further action in integrating into national education develOpment plan. Displayed in Appendix D.l is a detailed outline of Changyad Khonkaen Educational Development Plan, 1970-1976, as formulated from its own provincial effort. Procedures for Planning at National Level lrm In preparing the Third Five-Year Educational Development Plan (1972-1976), Thailand employed a committee approach. According to pie Educational Planning Division (1970a: 3-4 and A.7) several committees were established at national level. Their designated names and affil- iated organizations were conceptualized as shown in Figure 3.4. Func- tions for each committee can be described as follows: 1. The Committee of Planning of the Third National Education Development Plan was appointed by the Executive Committee of the National Education Council with the Secretary-General of the National Education Council acting as its chairman. The Committee was responsi— ble for formulating policies, setting targets, establishing budget ceilings, and defining projects of the national plan. 2. The Task Force Committees to Study and Prepare Education Development Plan was appointed by the Committee of the Third National Education DevelOpment Plan. It comprised four working groups: (1) higher education, (2) secondary education, teacher training and special education, (3) elementary education and kindergarten, and (4) nurse education. 36 zmn AHm QmHmH NSF mo onHon .oavu Heuusw>oum I A oouuuasoo usassoam .>on .usvu Houoawom ' filJuIJlllflltnll4ll4I|41IJIIQIIIJ'IIIITIIIJEIll _ _ ._ _ _ g . l . m o D.1. .d a 13 7D 1 T.- u c a a «.3 "v 3 O J J 1’ 3 a 8 1v 3 a “- ru 3 A P °onpa Aisauamatg'- ——+ DJIBJJV snotsttag}- _ f — — }. d 1 A S u. a O a I A D a D and B 3 9 0 D D. t. u. 3 u “.0 O a I. D. “a B J O B 1.9 T. m 1 .03 I A 0.... 3 J I 30 D. 9 a 8n n I. 3 D. a u D. n . I. n 3 u a . 8 e H Hu>oa Huooq on» us seam .>oc .oaum Opossum ou oouuwssou oouom anus #11 H — sowumuavm mo muumasfix onu cased: .ounon an momma .>oo .onom oummoum ou moouuusaoo munch amok H1 sowusoavm uo annuacfiz onu mo seam .>on .oavm can any «0 mousssam ecu oouuwsaou acuuosfivuooo H sowuounvu uo huumusaz oeu mo seam usoaaoao>oo acquoosvu nun osu mo anaconda now oouuwssoo wouuuouwn _ soauauavm no D535: H 1, .4 1+ }, I — a “a e.:.c. vans I. 33 IT. N 8 533 u n u. .030 D. 1 13 au.u a s a 1 a a D. 1 a A 119 83 33 B 1 ID .a T.D. .L.1,A 1.“ D. n 1 3 n a 391 a a B D.t.a u a D 3 nun u 3 .l a 1.3 D. 7r 0 . u T. m u 8.. soauousvm ouuaoum use avsum Ou oouuussou oouom anus madam usoaaoau>on u__1 seam usoaaoao>oo sowuaonvm Honoauwz cum on» wo wsassunm mo oouufiaaou a amuuwafloo u>fiuaooxm omz ,________J1 ,._.____.J _ Huossou aoauoonvu Hasowuez 37 In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Ministry of Education established several committees to cooperatively work with the four working groups. They were numbers 3—6 that followed. 3. Directing Committee for Planning of the Third Education DevelOpment Plan of the Ministry of Education. 4. Coordinating Committee for Planning of the Third Education DevelOpment Plan of the Ministry of Education. 5. Task Force Committee to Prepare Education DevelOpment Plan by Departments within the Ministry of Education: there were nine groups representing nine departments within the Ministry of Education which comprised the Task Force. Included were Elementary and Adult Education, Secondary Education, Vocational Education, Teacher Training, Physical Education, Educational Techniques, Fine Arts, Religion Affairs, and Office of Under-Secretary of State for Education. 6. Task Force Committee to Prepare Education Development Plan at Local Level worked with the twelve educational regions and seventy— one changyad education offices. It can be conceptualized that there were two "sets" of planning groups, in this case committees, at national level. One responded to the Executive Committee of the National Education Council another reported to the Ministry of Education. The former included a broad cross-section of the professional staff with representatives from such agencies responsible for national planning as the National Economic Development Board (NEDB), the Bureau of Budget (BOB), the Manpower Planning Office (MPO) of NEDB, the Ministry of Interior (MOI), Ministry of Education (MOE), higher education institutions, and several 38 other selected persons from both social and economic sectors. The latter set of committees included representatives of various departments within the Ministry of Education including professional staff from local level. Since plans were initiated at provincial level, the role of the Ministry of Education was, in one sense, a coordinating one. The MOE coordinates planning activities between the provinces (of local level) and the former planning group (of the national level). The planning procedures at national level can be outlined, in sequences, as follows: 1. The Committee of Planning of the Third National Education DevelOpment Plan was established. The Committee reported directly to the Executive Committee of the National Education Council. 2. The Committee of Planning of the Third National Education DevelOpment Plan appointed the Task Force Committees to Study and Prepare Education DevelOpment Plans. The Task Force appointed four working groups: (1) higher education, (2) secondary education, teacher training and special education, (3) elementary education and kindergarten, and (4) nurse education. 3. The Task Force Committees' working groups, with close COOpera— tion of the Ministry of Education's Coordinating Committee for Planning of the Third Education DevelOpment Plan, designed National Education Development Plan using data and information provided by the Ministry of Education's Regional Education Planning Project and provincial plans. 4. The Committee of Planning of the Third National Education DevelOpment Plan (#1) provided budget ceilings for the Task Force Committees (#3). 39 5. The Task Force Committees drafted the Third National Educa— tion DevelOpment Plan and presented for #l's approval. 6. The Committee of Planning of Third National Education Development Plan (#1) prOposed the drafted plan to the Executive Committee of the National Education Council for approval. The approved Plan became the national plan and was sent to the National Economic Development Board for plan integration and to the Ministry of Education for implementation. 7. The Ministry of Education reassigned the approved Plan to responsible departments and provinces. 8. Departments and provinces implemented their plans. The product of these processes, the Third Five-Year National Edu- cation Development Plan (1972—1976), is presented in Appendix D.2. CHAPTER IV PPBS INSTALLATION AND IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES PPBS Literature "The literature in this particular area (PPBS) is increasing rather dramatically. Most of the literature, however, is simply ”Tl descriptive and expository but not very operational." (Hartley, 1972) , This statement reflects a Very clear picture of literature on PPBS. The first book directly applied to education was published in 1968 entitled Educational Planninngrogpamming—Budgeting: A Systems Approach by Harry J. Hartley. Since then, PPBS has become one of the main topics found in educational planning, management and administration books. Great efforts have been made to produce materials pertinent to PPBS by such organizations as American Council of Education (ACE) and Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). A large number of articles pertinent to PPBS in education were also published through variety of professional periodicals; these can be found in such references as Education Index, ERIC's Research in Education, and A Biblipgraphy of Selected Rand Publications: Systems Analysis, 1970. In January 1972, the Office of Research and Evaluation of the School District of Philadelphia started publishing PPBS Users Newsletter on quarterly basis. The Newsletter aims to serve as "a clearinghouse for practical ideas and information concerning the development and imple- mentation of Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems in education and related areas." Gary F. Blanchard is its editor. (PPBS Users, 1972: 1) 4O 41 Other sources of information and ideas were exchanged, among users, through personal contacts among school districts and education insti- tutions where PPBS was implemented. A "second wave" of PPBS books appeared in late 1971 and early 1972. The Administrative Leadership Service of the Educational Service Bureau published PPBS Techniques in Educational Management by George H. Rumpel in 1971. The book is presented as a handbook to delineate the proce- dures recommended for the installation of a working application to public school education. The object of the book is to develOp a direct approach to the implementation of a program planning and budget— ing system for a typical school system. The writer proposes step-by— step implementation of a successful system of management control, with relatively less emphasis on classroom level objectives and their measurement. A book edited by Sue A. Carpenter entitled Program Budgeting for School District Plannipg was published by Educational Technology Publications in 1972. Most contributions are provided by the Rand staff. Its chapters on developing program structures, forecasting models, program designs, and the other components, inform the readers of the relevant considerations in develOping a PPB system, rather than giving specific instructions. The emphasis is on planning, which means that the perspective is broad and strategic, rather than tactical or administrative. Program budgeting is a way of 1ife—-a planning life. It forces exPlicit consideration of many things not usually thought of as an integral part of the bud- geting process. Such things as objectives, the priorities of objectives, and the dimensions of the future take their place along with the usual con- 42 siderations of fund availability, resource availability, and required expenditures. The result is budgetary documentation that is a part of decision-making pro- cess and not just a record of what happened last year, what might happen this year, and a five per- cent increase for what might happen next year. The program budget becomes, in fact, an instru- ment for orderly, considered change—-the means to achieving improved educational planning. —-Sue Haggart, 1972: 10-11 An operational book in an applied sense by Robert F. Alioto and J. A. Jungherr entitled Qperational PPBS for Education: A Practical Approach to Effective Decision Making, 1971, was published by Harper 6 Row Publishers. The book reveals how PPBS works in an applied sense. The authors aim to provide a practical approach for the introduction and installation of a PPB system. The first part describes the com- ponents that are necessary for an Operationalized PPB system. Part two provides a comprehensive example, through a procedures manual and a display document, of how to collect, analyze, and display the neces— sary information for a viable PPB system. Part three includes repre— sentative samples of various forms and other materials that have been developed by school districts in order to facilitate the implementation of a PPB system. History of PPBS The history of PPBS is somewhat indistinct. There are at least three possible antecedents to PPBS-~one in industry, one in the federal government, and one related to the evolution of budgetary reform. In industry, PPBS can be traced back to the time that the Dupont Corporation invested in General Motors, sometime around 1915. There is evidence that Dupont introduced its concepts of establishing T— -—..n 21....- k1—h'- 43 objectives, relating activities to these objectives, forecasting, planning for the future, developing standards and output measures, etc. into General Motors at this time. All of these characteristics, as will be noted later, are components of PPBS. In the Federal government, PPBS was introduced as part of the War Production Board's wartime control system in 1942. The Control Materials Plan was probably the first attempt at PPBS used in the Federal government. It is not usually identified as such because it was performed in terms of copper, steel, aluminum, and other critical materials rather than in dollars. However, it can be considered PPBS because it had the following characteristics: -The concept of looking at the whole picture, not just the parts -Identification of major goals -Specific program objectives -Program objectives divided into program elements —Programs crossing organizational lines -An extended time horizon -The examination and analysis of alternatives Budgetary reform in the United States has evolved through three distinct stages, the last of which is associated with the contemporary Planning-Programming-Budgeting System. In the initial stage, the primary emphasis was on central control of spending, and the budget was utilized to guard against administrative abuses. The detailed classification of objects of expenditure was the main control mechanism. The second stage was management-oriented. It was concerned with the efficient performance of work and prescribed activities. The performance budget, 111+ officially introduced by the Hoover Commission, was the major contribu- tion of the management orientation. The third stage is reflected in the planning orientation of the new PPB system. It has roots in economics and systems analysis and looks beyond the "installment buying" of the conventional budget to measure the future costs which more often than not have been overlooked, ignored, or at best under-1 5 estimated. (PPBS Staff, 1967: 2-4) While the new PPB system brings, among other things, a substantial change in the central focus of budgeting, it is anchored to half a century of tradition and evolution. PPBS is the management system of the future, but it is also a product of past and emerging developments, embracing earlier budgetary functions and now including;broad planning and analytical functions as well. In the narrow sense, PPBS was the brainchild of Charles J. Hitch and his associates at the Rand Corporation who were provided the opportunity to apply the analytical approaches to weapons planning and program decisions that they had develOped for the Air Force to a wider range of governmental activities when Hitch was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense-Controller in 1961. When Hitch unveiled his approach to budgeting to Congress (hearings conducted by the Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, July 24, 1961), he identified it as a "program package budgeting approach," and introduced his remarks with the statement that he would confine himself "to a discussion of what we are doing to improve the planning-programming-budgeting process within the Department of Defense." (Mowitz: l) The words planning, programming and budgeting systems had been abbreviated into PPBS by 45 August 25, 1965, when President Johnson announced at a press conference that the new system would be introduced throughout the federal agencies. During this same period of time the state-local finances project at the George Washington University, under a grant from the Ford Foundation, began to assist city, state and county governments with the development of planning, programming, budgeting systems. L In the mid-1960's, the Department of Defense was considered to be ill a model of management efficiency in the federal establishment and a number of articles appeared in popular journals implying that the Department's program package budgeting approach to the management of its resources should serve as model for all government agencies. The promised results were greater efficiency in the accomplishment of governmental objectives. A significant aspect of the Department of Defense's approach was the use of economic analysis to determine proba- ble costs of alternative courses of action in terms of the benefits (or level of effectiveness) that each alternative was likely to pro- duce. Many of the proponents of PPBS considered economic analysis to be the essential part of the process. But in a broader sense, what came to be called PPBS in the mid-1960's was a stage in the continuing development of governmental decision-making structures and processes for functioning in an increasingly complex society in which science and technology played major contributory roles in bringing about social, economic and political change. (Mowitz: 1—2) By 1961 when Robert McNamara was sworn in as Secretary of Defense, the management innovations that were introduced in order to provide the Department of Defense with a comprehensive planning, 46 programming, and budget decision process were the products of develop- ments in systems theory, methodology and technology which had occurred during the post-World War II period. To a large extent the introduc- tion of innovations stemmed from involvement in wars and the need to maintain a high level of military preparedness employing weapons systems based upon advanced science and technology. By the decade of 1960‘s, it was generally agreed that the time was ripe to apply the new decision technology to the most complex organization in society-—government. The Adoption of PPBS Following the Executive Order which required the heads of all federal agencies to adOpt PPBS for fiscal year 1968, the planners in industry, municipal and state governments, and other nondefense organizations sought to discover what could be learned from the federal experience. There was an intensive interest in the sophisti- cated conceptual procedures developed for the nation's (U.S.A.) top priority organization (as reflected in the share of GNP expended for defense), the Department of Defense. (Hartley, 1968: 100) By 1968, however, government agencies had had little experience with PPB. Most federal agencies were still trying to figure out what was really involved in PPB and not many had made impressive progress in implementation. Few state and local governments were knowledgeable about the approach. In 1972, PPBS is a familiar term at all levels of American government and in many countries outside the United States as well. (Lyden 8 Miller, 1972: l) The State-Local Finances Project (5-5—5 Project) of the George w'«Eashington University was instrumental in introducing American state 47 and local governments to the potentialities of this comprehensive budgetary approach. The 545-5 project was begun in 1966 under the directorship of Selma J. Mushin and supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The project was undertaken to demonstrate the conceptual and Operational feasibility of planning-programming-budgeting systems procedures for state and municipal governments and with the idea that their efforts would serve also a body of experience on which other governments might draw. Five states (California, Michigan, New York, Vermont, and Wisconsin); five counties (Dade, Florida; Davidson, Tennessee; Los Angeles, California; Nassau, New York; and Wayne, Michigan), and five cities (Dayton, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; New Haven, Connecticut; and San Diego, California). The extent to which PPBS procedures have been develOped varies greatly among these fifteen governmental units. The major relevant publica- tions of the project are: PPB Notes, l-ll; Program Planning for States, County, City (January 1967), by Harry Hatry and John Cotton; and Implementing PPB in State, City, and County: A Report on the 5—5—5 Project (June 1959). (Hartley, 1968: 101; Lyden and Miller, 1972: 11) As early as 1968, 28 states and 60 local governments reported that they were taking steps toward the implementation of PPB system, and an additional 155 local governments reported that they were con- sidering implementation. Outside the United States such countries as Belgium, Great Britain, Canada, and Japan have moved toward adOption of PPB systems in one form or another. (Lyden 6 Miller, 1972: 1) Many UNESCO nations have moved toward the same direction. PPBS is l 48 being used by the UNESCO nations in manpower projections to try to establish the kind of educational programs and techniques to prepare roles for the future. (Hartley, 1972) School districts and institutions of higher education, by 1968, had also adopted PPB systems, and a textbook for use in schools was published; a pioneer book is Educational-Planning—Programming-Budgeting: A Systems Approach (1968), by Harry J. Hartley. A great number of articles addressed directly to education have been published. Hartley (1972) observed PPBS in 1972 as follows: As far as the current state goes, it is difficult to determine exactly how many states have mandated some form of PPBS and how many local schools are actually "doing" PPBS. My own judgment is that more than 1,500 local schools are actually engaged in PPBS develOpment in operational sense. Opera- tional usage of PPBS continues to grow. PPBS Installation and Implementation When the decision is made to apply the PPBS mode of thinking to the development of educational systems, there are several factors that must be considered in order to insure the likelihood of a success- ful installation. Alioto and Jungherr (1971: 22) summarize these factors as follows: (1) what resources (personnel--professional and secretarial, equipment, and materials) will be needed to install and Operate a PPB system? (2) how much time will be required to accomplish the necessary tasks? (3) what specific strategy or steps for installing the system need to be considered? 1. Resources Most school districts in the United States possess the professional staff resources necessary to install PPBS. (Alioto and Jungherr, 1971: 49 22) Knezevich, on the other hand, argued that most schools have barely enough administrative staff to maintain the status quo and, therefore, the staff must be increased in order to implement a PPB system. He stated that it would take more than a dedicated and retrained adminis- trative staff to make PPBS work. (Knezevich, 1969) Experience has shown, however, that some districts are capable of implementing PPBS I A“ without the addition of professional personnel. Darien, Connecticut; Skokie, Illinois; and Pearl River, New York, have successfully initiated PPBS using only the existing professional staff. In most cases, the districts either initiated new positions with the rearrangement of personnel or changed functions of existing organization and, of course, of personnel. In both approaches, addi- tional training and reorientation are neCessary. In accordance, federal agencies, state, regional research centers, state department of education as well as individual universities have sponsored insti— tutes, workshops and seminars using PPBS approaches. (Rumpel, 1971: 13) Beside such training, state and school districts received assistance through contracted consultants with various organizations. The Board of Education of the City of New York had a contract with Stanford Research Institute; the counties of Bucks, Cameron, Elk, McKean, and Potter of Pennsylvania with Fels Institute of Local and State Government of University of Pennsylvania; Warwick School Department and Barrington School Department of Rhode Island with individual agents, Dr. Harry Hartley and Dr. James Richard of New York University; School District of the City of Detroit with Price Waterhouse 8 Company; School District of Philadelphia with Price Waterhouse 8 Company; the State of Pennsylvania 50 with Institute of Public Administration of the Pennsylvania State University; Dade County of Florida with the Association of School Business Officials, the New England School DevelOpment Council and the American Association of School Administrators, among others, have Spent efforts on behalf of their organizations to develop PPBS for education. The adOption of legislation by the State of California establishing an advisory commission, whose purpose is to assist all school districts in the installation of PPBS, has promoted the applica- tion of PPBS to education. When an organization initiated PPBS approach, a new "PPBS office" was normally established. This was done by either changing the name of the existing Office and functions or creating a completely new bureau under various names. The School District of the City of Detroit estab- lished "The Office for Program Budgeting" in 1971. The New York City Board of Education initiated the "Office of Planning-Programming- Budgeting" with three sub-units: Systems Planning and Program Analysis, Program Budget Operation 8 Review, and Management Information. Other organizations assigned PPBS operations under such persons as assistant superintendent for business management, assistant superintendent for instruction, business manager, and PPBS project director. Some dis- tricts assigned PPBS responsibilities according to office functions, the others to individuals perceived as competent in the subject. This caused many difficulties and was convinced by Hartley as he stated, "PPBS is very highly personalized. That is, its success depends on one particular person in the organization. If that person should leave the district (PPBS specialists are in demand and are mobile), the 51 whole project is left in disarray. We need continuity of documenta- tion." (Hartley, 1972) Since PPBS has been used prior to its reliance on EDP (Electronic Data Processing), the understanding of PPBS educational applications must be first explored on a manual basis before complicating its comprehen- sion by involving computer-related technicalities and terminologies. (Rumpel, 1971: 7) Most of school districts followed this principle and found their PPBS projects manageable. This technique alone is responsible for vast savings in cost. Of course, the improved computer speeds and expanded capabilities are helpful in saving time and solving complicated problems like analysis of a wide range of alternatives and evaluating the effect of each on the total results. 2. Time Reqpired to Operationalize PPBS Hartley (1972) was convinced that "the number one problem in implementing PPBS is the lack of time. Administrators are generally unable to devote sufficient time to this activity. AS a result, most schools are underadministered. PPBS is usually done in spurts of activity, and this results in uneven progress and frustration." Alioto and Jungherr (1971: 25-6) observed that the speed with which a PPB system could be initiated within a school system would depend upon the backing and active interest of the board of education and central administration and on the quality and number of personnel assigned to specific tasks. Hatry and Cotton (1967) found that in governmental agencies the achievement of a smoothly running PPBS system could not be expected in one or two years. (p. 34) Through their experiences, 52 Alioto and Jungherr (1972: 26) came to believe that "with a concerted effort it is definitely possible to achieve the installation of a PPB system within a shorter time frame. Through the use of sufficient manpower and time commitment it might be possible to Operationalize a PPB system in less than three years. The change to a PPB system is of such magnitude that it would be virtually impossible to install the complete system in a one-year time frame." However, the school community may enjoy some of the posi- tive benefits of a PPB system far sooner than designers of theoretical models have previously suggested. PPBS is divisible, that is, the com- ponents can be initiated on a partial basis; therefore, the district has considerable latitude in choosing a starting point. The initial bene- fits that a school district can achieve will depend on both the starting point selected and the effort devoted to activities leading to the installation of a PPB system. —-Alioto and Jungherr, 1971: 26 3. Strategies for the Introduction of a PPB System It is clear that administrators, as authority figures, are crucial in introducing innovations, particularly those involving educational change. The implications of the literature for bringing about innovation in education demonstrates the need for attaining a commitment from the top—level administrators. Without their commitment PPBS probably will not be successfully installed in a school system. A formal resolution endorsing the concepts of PPBS should be passed by the highest decision- making body as a visible manifestation of its commitment to the installa— tion of the system. The resolution by the highest decision-making body approving the concept of PPBS and sanctioning its installation leads to the consideration of strategy to be.utilized in order to Operationa- 53 lize PPBS. In order to bring about any change in a bureaucratic organization there must be persons willing and able to make decisions on activities necessary for effecting the change. Alioto and Jungherr (1971: 27) suggested that while the power of communications in decision making by informal groups has to be recognized, the installation of PPBS can best be accomplished on a systematic and formalized basis. Because the components of a PPB system cut across all activities and the organizational structure of a school system, the systematic linkage of all the components is an absolute necessity for a fully Operationalized PPB system. (emphasis supplied) In order to formalize the decision-making process and to guarantee the systematic linkage of the components, a group of ten to fifteen persons are normally assigned the overall responsibility for the instal— latiOn of the PPB system. This is a central PPBS group reporting directly to the superintendent of schools. It is required to initiate and develop the system. Normally it is called a PPBS task force. A successful task force includes a broad cross-section of the professional staff with certain representatives from the public and from the high decision-making body. The task force is responsible for the accom- plishment of the following activities: 1. Task force orientation 2. Consideration of alternative resources 3. Preparation of the detailed installation plan 4. Design of the program structure . 5. Preparation of objectives, establishment of priorities, and evaluation of achievement 6. Preparation of program budget 7. Design of the program accounting system 8. Programming: providing for multi-year planning, program review, and analysis of alternatives 9. Preparation of the PPBS document --Alioto and Jungherr, 1971: 29 : L? 1‘ 11 -P O .1 .1- IE 1 L. '1. '_ . .- - I .I 1 I One: - Wfliuiua—n n-v‘ _ _ 54 Practically, the task force has the authority to establish sub- committees on an ed pgg_basis. Such subcommittees, as commonly found among school districts, are an "objective subcommittee," "program analysis subcommittee," "program budget accounting subcommittee," "communication, public relations subcommittee," "management information subcommittee," and "training subcommittee." Approaches and Sequences of Task The most frequently employed approaches to the installation of PPBS can be classified into three categOries: (1) utilizing existing staff, (2) employing an outside consultant, and (3) purchasing a packaged program. School Districts may employ a combination of two or more of these approaches. The task force usually faces one of the important questions regarding the starting point of the implementation of PPBS. Generally, a school district's task force takes one of the PPBS components for starting the installation of the system. Such components are: (1) preparation of objectives, (2) preparation of program structure, (3) program analysis, and (4) program budget. Among the school dis- tricts attempting to install PPBS, there is no consensus as to which starting point is the most effective. Westport School District, Connecticut, started with its goals (objectives) while Milford School District, New Hampshire, started with its program budgeting. However, whatever the starting points are the task force must follow some systematic strategy for the implementation. One of the commonly used by school districts is such designed by Harry Hartley 55 (in Hunt and Alward, 1971: 18) for Warwick and Barrington, Rhode Island. It is shown below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Hold In-Service Training Session Identify PPBS Implications for Teachers Select PPBS Task Force Develop an Implementation Strategy Emphasize Humanistic Aspect of PPBS Specify PPBS Tasks to be Accomplished Monitor Tasks with an Event Schedule Design School's Program Structure Formulate Budget Account Codes Identify Cost of Each Program Prepare Annual Budget Cycle Prepare Concise Procedural Manual Develop Expenditure Control Sheets Prepare Budget Worksh0p and Forms Publish Internal Program Budget (Legal Budget) Publish Public Program Budget (Presentation Budget) Prepare Organization Charts Integrate Existing Data and Reports in the District Design Information System for Electronic Data Processing State Format and Content for Program Analysis Outline Reasons for Preparing Program Memoranda Select Target Programs for Detailed Analysis Devise a Feasible Evaluation Strategy Consider Accountability via Performance Objectives Identify Performance Indicators for the School District Decentralize Planning and Budgeting Deve10p a Communications Plan Provide Periodic Progress Reports Discuss PPBS Questions and Answers with Staff and Public Critique PPBS Project with Internal Position Papers Prepare Statement of Goals Consider Writing Behavioral Objectives Avoid Misusing Systems Analysis Analyze Cost-Effectiveness of Programs Analyze Teacher Time Utilization Prepare Concise PPBS Glossary Read New USOE Handbook II: "Financial Accounting" Make Multi-Year Projections for Planning Select Topics for Intensive PPBS Staff Training Exchange PPBS Materials with other Local Schools Problems Confronted One school district started to implement PPBS and then stopped, Brown reported. (Brown, 1972: 6) The experience left the district 56 with no benefits and considerable costs--especially in terms of wasted time and energy of large number of people. Other school districts and educational institutions confronted similar problems, to a certain ex- tent. The problems are identified by Brown (1972: 6-8), Koch (1972: 12), Hartley (1972: 1-4), Sutton (1972: 9), and others. These, coupled with the interviews, can be summarized into 9 areas as follows: Problem 1: Differences in Expectation As with many new projects to improve education, board members and citizens are often led to expect too much. Plans for implementing PPBS are usually accompanied by talk of more effective uses of resources, greater productivity, mOre efficiency, and so on. To most board mem- bers this may mean holding the present programs at the current per- formance levels and reducing costs. To most educators this may mean better programs with little or no increases (except salary raises). A more realistic and candid exchange of views from the beginning might avoid some of the future difficulties. PrOblem 2: Leadership and Planning The notions of project planning and management are not understood by every administrator. Many of them have never had the training or experience. If a project director is not prOperly prepared, resources should be allocated for training him. A project manager should have or acquire the ability to plan effectively, to implement a project, and work with people. He will need the strong backing of the superin- tendent. 57 The central planning and budgeting staff must become conversant with the concepts and techniques of PPBS at the outset. They are immediately and directly involved in the design and development of the system, and must explain, even defend, it to others. An organized orientation and training program should progressively reach apprOpriate agency personnel during the preliminary phase. Involvement of agency personnel in any aspect of the system before training is unwise. Problem 3: Orgenization and Commitment In deciding how PPBS will be implemented, a realistic assessment of the superintendent's staff is essential. Often, one of the first steps, early in the project, is reorganization of the management and supervisory staff along lines which are more programmatic or func- tional. A single office should be assigned the authority and responsibility for the overall development and implementation of the system by the chief executive. The chief executive must give his official sanction and support to PPBS if it is to progress as planned, and if it is to become in fact a meaningful management information system. Problem 4: Financial and Other Costs PPBS costs money and time to implement. District staffs need to accomplish enough early planning to apprise the superintendent and board of the full estimated costs including, especially, staff training and support systems develOpment. Because implementation never proceeds exactly as planned, the project plan and budget must be periodically reviewed, revised, and approved by the chief executive. 58 Problem 5: Lack of Communication PPBS sometimes is kept a deep, dark secret which only the central office administrators understand. But if peOple do not know about the project, they may not understand that the irritating thing they have to do now fits into a larger picture which benefits the district and, eventually, the students. They may even refuse to respond at all. Many districts use a PPBS project newsletter as well as periodic staff briefings. Problem 6: Lack of Participation Too often, administrators, and especially, principals are not involved in the development of the project itself. Planning of the project should include an advisory board with a wide range of people including, possibly, teachers under sOme conditions. This is not to imply that such a group should be able to hamstring a policy decision to move ahead with the project. Problem 7: Insufficient Training_ Training usually costs money. But it is important if real change is to take place. A great many, if not all, of the employes have to receive some type of normal training. Through experience, the most 'effective and the most challenging means of accomplishing this task well is to use as the materials of instruction the real forms and pro- cedures that will be required. A minimum of time should be spent on the theoretical, and the maximum on what has to be done, when, and how. Let the "why" emerge as these specifics are questioned. 59 Problem 8: Failure to Confide in the High Decision-Making Body When the full implications of PPBS become apparent, it sometimes startles the board and administration. There is a natural tendency to want to avoid the difficulties attendant upon the implementation of changes which affect the staff--as nearly all do. The relationship becomes a rather critical condition for success for the new system. Problem 9: Misconception of PPBS Perhaps the most common misuse of PPBS by school districts is to assume that the concept applies only to the Operations of the school business administrators. Most districts which claim that they are moving toward a PPBS design do not involve curriculum-instructional specialists until a later phase, if they involve them at all. If this new approach is to be successful it is imperative that instructional specialists be involved from the very beginning in the design and classification of the program structure. Continual dialogue and coopera- tion between instructional specialists and financial administrators are essential. CHAPTER V PPBS CONCEPTS, COMPONENTS, ELEMENTS AND PROCEDURES PPBS Concept and Components Planning-Programming-Budgeting Systems (PPBS) is a management system involving the selection or identification of the overall, long- range objectives of the organization and the systematic analysis of various courses of action in terms of relative costs and benefits (Planning); deciding specific courses of action to be followed in carrying out planning decisions (Programming); and translating planning and programming decisions into specific financial plans (Budgeting). (Gulko, 1972: 119) It is an approach to decision-making which systemat— ically integrates all aspects of planning and implementation of programs. (Alioto 5 Jungherr, 1971: 9) However, it should bear in mind, David Novick reminds, that there are a number of important things that PPBS does not do: one is that PPB is an instrument for overall planning which utilizes existing systems for directing and controlling operations and therefore does not necessitate change in either existing organization or methods of adminis- tration. Second, PPB is specifically designed for long-range planning and budgeting; it is not primarily a tool for conducting the annual budgeting-accounting cycle, although next year's budget must be included in its purview and accounting supplies part of the reports. Third, although PPB stresses the use of quan— titative analytical methods, and in some cases a rather extensive use of modern computer technology, it does not attempt to quantify every part of the problem or to computerize the decision-making process. --David Novick, 1968: 2 6O 61 The activities involved in the process have been described by William Gorham (1967) as follows: The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System is a framework for planning-~a way of or— ganizing information and analysis in a sys- tematic fashion so that the consequences of particular choices can be seen as clearly as possible. It attempts to do three things; tioning of actual governmental programs so that it is possible to see easily what por_ tion of federal resources is being allocated 1g to particular.purposes, what is being accom- plished by the programs, and how much they cost; 1. To display information about the func- r“’LI 2. To analyze the costs of alternative methods of achieving particular objectives so that it is possible to rank the alternatives in terms of their relative costs; 3. To evaluate the benefits of achieving objec— tives as comprehensively and quantitatively as possible in order to facilitate the setting of priorities among objectives. (pp. 4-5) The Report of the First National Conference on PPBES in Education (1969) describes the activities involved-—planning, programming, budget- ing, and evaluation-—rather more specifically as follows: Planning is directed toward keeping the school doing what it is supposed to do. That is, the process generates a series of objectives devoted primarily toward assisting the school system to meet its responsibility to society. Progpamming is concerned with the generation of a series of alternative activities and the selec- tion of a specific activity or a group of activities designed to bring about the achievement of an ob- jective. Programming includes multi-year planning, program review, and the analysis of alternatives. Budgeting is the allocation of financial resources to the activities selected according to established priorities. 62 Evaluating consists of a review of actual perfor- mance which provides evidence of whether or not the stated objectives have been obtained. Evalua- tion leads directly to a redesign of objectives, a reassessment of programs and priorities, and the allocation of resources. Therefore, the evaluation components of PPBS may provide for continuous renewal of the educational programs. (p. 45) As stated earlier that PPBS is an approach to decision making which systematically integrates all aspects of planning and implementation of programs. The principle can be conceptualized as shown in Figure 5.1. The PPBS process is, in general, conceptualized as having four major components. All are essential in the complete PPB system. They are structural aspect, analytical aspect, control aspect, and data and information aspect. Figure 5.2 shows how the components fit into the PPB system. Haggart (1972) describes the four components as follows: Structural aspect involves the setting of objec- tives and the development of a program structure. These are interacting activities. Attempts to identify groups of programs that, either singly Or in combination, help to clarify objectives. Conversely, clarification of Objectives will facilitate the task of grouping program elements into programs. - The second component of program budgeting is the analytical aspect. It is within this area that the cost-effectiveness analyses and trade-offs are made. It is in this area also that the generation or identification of alternative ways to meet objectives most often takes place. The third component is the control aspect. Basically, this involves keeping tabs on how well a new program is being implemented and recording program changes--in other words, pro— gress reporting and control. The fourth component is data and information aspect. The analytical component of the program budgeting influences the choice of data. As the 63 PLANNING (generating objectives) PROGRAMMING (generating MEMORANDA (evaluating 1!”: progress, out- P ING alternative set DECISIONING of activities ' and services) puts, and effectiveness) BUDGETING (formulating plans, account- ing and reporting) FIGURE 5.1 CONCEPTUALIZED PPBS COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES Source: adapted from Report of the First National Conference on PPBS in Education (1969) as quoted by Alioto and Jungherr (1971: 116), and from.Hart1ey (1972). ACTIVITIES Setting Objectives Defining Programs Assigning Activities to Programs Determining Resource Requirements Costing Programs Developing Criteria Identifying Alternatives Evaluating Alternatives Up-Dating Program FIGURE 5.2 Source: Haggart, l972:8 64 COMPONENTS DOCUMENTATION All Programs Structural Program and Aspect Financial Plan F- ————— ‘ Analytical Aspect One Program --—_--q Control Program Aspect Memorandum ”‘"""'l Data and Special Issues Information Aspect Special Studies Report PPBS COMPONENTS WITHIN PPB SYSTEM 65 successful implementation and utilization of the system progresses, certain data appear that were not evident before. These data then become useful, not so much as an end in themselves, but rather because they support the analytical part of the process. (pp. 7-9) Fisher (1966: 32-33; 1970: 181-182), Pethruschell (1968: 3), and many other authorities in the field view PPBS as having three components; they all combine the third and fourth components which described by Haggart into a single component. PPBS Elements The previous section provides concepts and components which comprise PPBS. The PPB system possesses several distinctive characteristics which shape it into a rational process for management and planning. This section describes "elements" inferred from the PPBS implications for education. Objectives An essential characteristic of PPBS is its output orientation: PPBS describes accomplishment rather than things purchased. It is structured on the basis of outputs, missions, functions, activities, services, or programs, rather than on traditional input items. Each governmental agency is required to determine a series of output categories that cover the total work of the agency. This assemblage of output-oriented activities serves as the basic framework for the planning, programming, and budgeting processes. (Hartley, 1968: 85, 90-91) Objectives refer to goals or results that the decision maker see}: to attain; hence, the end product or output of a program. (Gulko, 1972: 117) 66 Identification of specific government objectives and establish- ment of appropriate categories (which cut across departmental lines where needed) are major initial steps in instituting a PPB system. (Hatry and Cotton, 1967: 16—17) It is useful to conceive of objectives as existing at several levels reflecting varying degrees of abstraction. Under a PPB system each level may have its own set of objectives which should be related through the program structure. Therefore, a hierarchical relationship of objectives is established. The objectives become more specific, behavioral, observable, and measurable as one proceeds through the various levels of the program structure. This is confirmed by the Western New York School DevelOpment Council (1970): the smaller the unit within an organization for which one is planning, the more specific statements of objectives become; the target date of accomplishment of the objectives become more precise; and source requirements are easier to identify. (pp. 2-3) Under the PPB system, objectives can be classified into three basic types. Alioto and Jungherr (1971) describes these types as follows: 1. Philosophical Objectives These are statements of general educational aims, such as school board policies that are philOSOphical in nature. They are usually based on an assessment of the general expectations of community, student, and professional staffs. PhilOSOphical objectives by definition are general and timeless. They are helpful to the extent that they provide overall direction for the development of more specific objectives. Referring to the program structure, philOSOphical objectives may be developed for levels one, two, and possibly three. Philosophi— cal objectives are synonymous with goals as defined by Hartley (1968: 155). 67 2. Instructional Program Objectives Instructional program objectives are statements of anticipated behavioral changes to be accom- plished in a particular instructional program area. Instructional objectives are prescriptions for change. They describe what is to be learned, when the information or skills will be learned, and the circumstances under which the learner will be evaluated. An instructional program objective describes the educational intent of the instructional program rather than the teach- ing method for achieving it. Further, it des- cribes the conditions under which the behavior will occur and establishes criteria for judging acceptable performance. An instructional program objective differs from a philosophical objective because it requires a specific time frame and evaluative criteria. 3. Support Service Program Objectives Support service program objectives are state- ments of the purpose of these services and their relationship to the overall instructional program. Examples of supporting service program areas are transportation, school cafeteria, and plant Operation and maintenance. Support service objectives should be designed using the same criteria as the instructional program objectives. That is, they should include a statement of the purpose of the supporting service, the time frame under which it is to be accomplished, and the criteria that will be used for determining whether or not it has been accomplished. (p. su) Because PPBS is a system, the relationship among the three types of objectives is important. Much of the benefit accrued from PPBS approach is the fact that these relationships can be spelled out. The instructional program objectives—-the most numerous and difficult to determine—~are related to the philOSOphical objectives. Support service program objectives can be justified and evaluated primarily in terms of their contribution to the instructional program. The PPB system links the three types of objectives into a functioning whole. This facilitates the gathering and analysis of data on all the programs that make up the school system. 68 Program Structure The very heart of the PPBS is the program structure, for it makes the outputs of a school district visible and identifies the resources required to yield these outputs. (Hartley, 1968: 15”) Program struc— ture is "a classification system that categorizes the activities of an organization according to their relationship to the organization's objectives." (Gulko, 1972: 121) The program structure provides for the integration of all the components of a PPB system. It is the basis for displaying objectives and evaluation data by program area. It also provides for the grouping of activities to which costs can be assigned. The analysis within a particular group of activities or between groupings of actitities can be accomplished as a result of the program Structure. Thus, the program structure furnishes the framework for unifying all of the components of a PPB system. According to Alioto and Jungherr (1971: #1), the pur— poses of the program structure are two-fold: (l) to display information that will be meaningful to administrators and usable in decision-making, and (2) to provide a base of information that will support the subsequent efforts at systems analysis. Each of these purposes can be accomplished by estab— lishing a classification scheme that groups the organization's activities according to the objective that each activity serves. Within the resulting taxonomic framework, information can be brought together on resource requirements, cost, outputs, and benefits of all the activities carried on by the organization. The array of categories used to repre- sent the activities of the organization and their interrelationships is known as a program structure. --Haggart (in Alioto and Jungherr, 1971: u2) 69 In addition to linking program categories and objectives, a program structure has several other properties. Barro exPlains these prOperties as follows: (Haggart, 1972: 21-23) I. The program structure should embrace all the activities of the organization. In the—. case of a school district, this means that program categories must provide for instruc- tional activities (both inside and outside the classroom), administrative activities, activities related to Operation and main— tenance of facilities, and activities related to a variety of ancillary and support func- tions performed by the school system. The reason for this comprehensiveness is that program budgeting is intended to help admin- istrators in allocating all the resources at their disposal among the district's various programs. 2. The program structure is a hierarchical classification scheme. District activities are grouped into a relatively small number of programs; these are subdivided into more narrowly defined subprograms; and the sub- programs, in turn, are composed of still more narrowly specified program elements. These successive levels correspond to a parallel hierarchy of objectives: broad educational ones at the top and progres- sively more specific ones at each lower level. ' 3. The program structure should allow for categorization of activities according to several attributes. Attributes other than relationship to educational objectives may include such things as target population, geographic location, and various descrip— tors of the process involved in each activity. Classification according to such variables results in a multidimen- sional that has sometimes been neglected in the literature, but not in practice. However, it is a particularly important prOperty to bear in mind in developing a program structure for a school system, or for other types of educational institutions, as will become evident later. 70 4. The program structure should allow for and reflect differences in how directly activities relate to objectives. In some cases the rela— tionship is clear and direct. For example, instruction in reading contributes to attainment of the objective, "learning to read." However, many district activities make their contributions_ in much less obvious and direct ways. For in- stance, supervision of instruction by the princi— pal and provision of electric light in the class— rooms also contribute ultimately to "learning to read" and to many other educational objectives. The program structure must be designed to show the nature of the relationship between each type of activity and the postulated educational objec- tives. 5. The program structure should be made up of categories that remain relatively stable over the years, so that long—range planning can be carried on; but it should also be able to accommodate new activities when necessary. Obviously, these two attributes are somewhat in conflict. A workable compromise may involve (a) setting up the higher- level categories (programs and subprograms) so that they encompass relatively broad ranges of activities-—not only the activities actually carried on by the organization at a particular time--while (b) allowing for occasional replace- ment or realignment of the individual program elements that fall within these categories. Thus, the broad outlines of the program struc— ture will be stable, while program changes will be reflected at the detailed level of the classifi- cation system. Figure 5.3 displays the program structure element as it functions in the PPB system. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis The cornerstone of PPBS is the systematic identification and analysis of alternative ways to achieve organizational objectives. The analysis process provides a decision-maker with a considerably improved understanding of the issues and the alternatives open to him; the resulting program plan and its implementing budget should 71 DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURAL ASPECT DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL ASPECT INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM r.._.__. . Describe student Define broad goals Determine resource 1 I population i requirements .. Describe resource I. Define Operational base I objectives Determine cost of Personnel | activities Staff support I. Identify activitiefi Facilities I . DevelOp program cost Equipment . Define programs I estimates Supplies | Other I- Define program I. Develop estimating relationships _ ‘ elements . Describe communi tyH profile Develop program. . Determine criteria of h-- 'TEEE" I :5 ' __ DEVEIQPMENT ______ .J Socio-economic I structure (GroupI effectiveness Demographic ' activities) I L Determine measures of . Define management I | effectiveness structure ' Administration i. Identify alternatives hierarchy I I Decision process] L Evaluate alternatives Information I | system | I . Determine data I I availability I ' I I I | ,— _____ L _______ q ' I I I RESOURCE AND cosr MODEL , I l I METHODS AND PROCEDURES _--—_-— 'Intra-system data I I DEVEgPMENT | Extra-system data D T AS ' Quantifiable data I A'A B E . Non-quantifiable ' I facets FIGURE 5.3 SCHEMATIC OF ACTIVITY AREAS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PPBS,“ Source: Haggart, 1971:2 thereby also be considerably improved. 15,v12) 72 Cost-effectiveness analysis is an analytical approach to solving problems Of choice requir- ing the definition of Objectives, identifica- tion Of alternative ways Of achieving each Objective, and the determination Of which alternative yields the maximum benefit for a given cost or yields a given benefit at the lowest cost. --Warren Gulko, 1972: (Hatry and Cotton, 1967: 111 This process is used to examine alternative courses of action in terms of utility and cost. When possible, a quantitative analysis Of comparative benefits is made. Otherwise, less rigorous analysis prevails. The Options are made explicit in order tO clarify relevant choices of their probable consequences. The analytical activity is used to generate new Objectives and alternatives and to help . specify the most appropriate courses of action. It is, therefore, intended to provide policy appraisal rather than mere budget justification. --Harry Hartley, 1968: an In order to determine a pay-Off function, the cost Of a particular course of action should be compared with anticipated benefits and then weighed against alternative course Of action. This analytic approach is similar to cost-utility, benefit-cost, or even input-output analysis, and it is designed to aid in the evaluation Of competing alternatives. Until educational benefits no longer defy complete quantitative measure- ment, it is desirable to articulate many Of the benefits in nonquanti- tative terms. would probably suffocate the basic concept Of PPBS. Attempts to quantify all program Objectives of a school (Hartley, 1972: Q7) 73 Keller has defined this process as ". . . both an attitude and a set of formal analytic techniques which attempt to relate the costs and benefits Of competing programs in a rigorous quantitative fashion so that choices can be made about preferred courses Of action." (Gulko, 1972: 6) Cost—effectiveness analysis is a technique for comparing programs, and, according to Carpenter and Haggart (in Haggart, 1972), may be used: . tO help assess the relative worth Of several innovative programs with the same educational outcome (such as improvement in reading achieve- ment); . to determine whether a single program is becoming more or less effective as time passes so that steps may be taken to improve it, if necessary; . to help assess the relative worth of the same program for different student populations (such as those with differing socio-economic back- grounds) or in different school settings. (page 272) The analytical phase is concerned with the extent tO which the results of the quantitative analysis do, in fact, bear on the choice problem and with identifying all Of the important nonquantifiable variables that must also be weighed by the planner. Sociological and political implications are examples Of nonquantifiable variables that are Often overriding. Organizing these vague and largely intangible but necessary inputs to the decision process is also part Of systems analysis. (Petruschell, 1968: 9) The goal of the analysis is not to provide the planner with the alternative that "maximizes" or "minimizes" specific characteris- tics; the goal is tO provide information which together with the 71+ judgment of the planner permits a compromise among the characteristics Of the alternatives within the various environmental constraints, such as budget level or political atmosphere. (Haggart, 1972: 272) Management Information System (MIS) PPBS is a system aimed at helping management make better decisions on the allocation of resources among alternative ways to attain organi— zational Objectives. Its essence is the develOpment and presentation Of information as to the full implications, the costs and benefits, Of the major alternative courses Of action relevant to major resource allocation decisions. The logic Of the decision structure is expressed in the program structure. Program structure concepts, therefore, provide the key to the develOpment of the information system. (Mowitz: 31) This idea is confirmed by Haggart's earlier statement that the purposes of program structure are two-fold: (l) to display information that will be meaningful to administrators and usable in decision—making, and (2) tO provide a base of information that will support the subse- quent efforts at systems analysis. Program structuring is an iterative process. As the Objectives are initially identified and the program structure develOped, the process serves to clarify the Objectives. This clarification, in turn, facilitates the program structuring. The process is continued, with the goal being to achieve a workable program structure. The program structure then provides a format for the program budget. The program budget, itself, is a display Of the expenditure conse- quences, overtime, Of activities resulting from current policies and decisions. Combining this with the program plan that includes output 75 measures results in an organized information base--an informational framework--that is useful in assessing current programs and in evalu- ating the alternatives in terms of their impact on the cost and effec- tiveness Of all the programs. This is in keeping with the overall concept Of PPB as a management tool in educational planning--the purpose of the planning being not only to achieve better educational results but also more effective use Of resources. (Haggart, 1972: 229-230) According to Harry Hartley (1968): All Of the informational elements Of PPBS, taken together, constitute an MIS that is designed to facilitate decision making. . . . It includes the blending Of conceptual elements (system specifi- cations), procedural aspects (administrative plan), and the day—tO-day, Operational facets Of collec- ting and utilizing the information. M18 is more than just record keeping. Although information will be received and recorded, it is classified in a manner consistent with programs and Objec- tives; it is accessible for program reports and analysis. (p. 188) The MIS's component and functions within the PPB system is displayed in Figure 5.3. Budget One of the fundamental principles Of PPBS is that ongoing programs are reviewed simultaneously with proposed new programs and Operating and capital budgets are considered together. There is always the possibility of paying for something new by reducing or otherwise changing that which is already in process. (Petruschell, 1968: 1a) PPB system's influence on the budget review process is probably the most important aspect comparing with traditional (line-item) budgeting. 76 The government's budget is a key element in converting a develop- ment plan into a program for action (Waterston, 1969: 201) Budget is used as an important means of (1) developing planning process, (2) developing plans, and (3) implementing plans. The budget process, prOperly used, can help develOp a strong planning organization. A strong planning organization, in turn, makes better budgeting. Budget may be used in variety Of ways to strengthen planning. For planning to be capable Of implementation the planning process must not end with the preparation Of a set of recommendations or plans prepared in isolation from the programs through which they must be implemented. The mechanism for implementation includes the preparation Of programs in physical and financial terms which ultimately are set forth in the budget. A useful budget should represent estimates of the cost of carrying out recommended programs over a number Of years. It should constitute a plan, which is usually reviewed and probably revised for implementing policy. In this sense the budget represents the commitment on the part Of the governing body Of the education enterprise to allocate scarce resources to specific activities so as tO attain specific Objectives. Preferably some output estimates should accompany the budget. It is helpful to have a budget which is structured so that it facilitates the measurement Of costs to key specified Objectives as well as comparison of alter- native courses Of action. The entire education enter- prise as well as its sub-units should be encouraged to formulate program goals which are regarded as basic Of their commitment to action and represent ultimate measures against which actions must be validated. The budget should help identify specific Objectives through which broad goals are translated into prac- tical terms and should assist in the evaluation Of activities in terms Of their effectiveness in con- tributing tO program Objectives. 77 It is essential that planning and budgeting pro- cesses be very closely linked. If planning is to be fruitful it must be effectively contri- bute to the process by which different units in the system identify their missions, specify their goals and Objectives, monetary implications, evaluate alternatives and select the most effec— tive programs. Since many programs cut across departmental lines it is important to prepare for a broad area, i.e., the entire education enter- prise, it cuts across numerous administrative units and thus becomes in essence a mechanism for coordination. --Werner Hirsch (in OECD, 1968: 93) Multi-Year Plan The main contribution Of PPBS lies in the planning process, i.e., the process of making program policy decisions that lead to a specific budget and specific multi-year plans. (Hatry and Cotton, 1967: 15) This approach explicitly considers the implications Of future cOnditions. This requires forecasts Of future demands on the organization, future resources available, and the capacity Of current programs and projects to meet the Objectives Of the organization under conditions anticipated in the future. Plans are revised or new plans originated as necessary to overcome obstacles and to achieve changing Objectives. The concept of multi-year planning is an important part Of program analysis because Of the necessity for predicting the long-term conse- quences Of program decisions. Also, decision makers are not limited to a single academic year in analyzing the priorities for allocating resources. The multi-year concept assures the recognition of the educational and financial impact of program decisions over a long time period. (Alioto and Jungherr, 1971: 10a) 78 Program, or department, chairmen and others in— volved in school planning are required to project their needs into the future for a stated period Of time, perhaps five years. Budget classifica— tion should facilitate the comparison of program outcomes over a span Of time. In education, this is done in capital budgets much more than in Operating budgets because there are formal, re- quired procedures for estimating pupil enrollments and forecasting the number of buildings to be needed at future time. What is needed is a decisional matrix and data flow plan ensuring that annual budgeting is not merely incremental, but is integrated with long-range planning on a continuinggbasis. (emphasis supplied) --Harry Hartley, 1968: 97 Prgggam Memorandum Program memorandum is an internal planning document that records analyzed programs and lists alternatives and recommendations. (Hartley, I968: 256) This document is prepared for each major program--either instructional or support--and contains the recommendations; identifies issues involved, in terms of selection, from among alternatives; and explains the basis for the selection. (Haggart, 1972: 10) Program memorandum provides the communication between the analysts within‘a program area and the analytical staff which services the decision-making group. In these studies the program group lays out the issues it identifies in the program area, the alternatives it recommends, and the pros and cons for its recommendations, as well as the data, analysis, and arguments for the possibilities it has rejected. The t0p-side analytical group re-analyzes the program memorandum and writes its program memorandum in response. The reply may accept the recommendations for the same, different, or modified reasons. It 79 may determine issues that have not been raised. It may suggest alter- native program packages that have not been considered. It may modify alternatives that were examined. After as much study, analysis, and re-analysis as time permits, the tOp staff, with concurrence or Objec- tion from the program manager, drafts the final program memorandum covering all issues and all alternatives for consideration by the decision maker. (NOvick, 1968: 8-9) PPBS, taken to full installation, will give the administrator an ideal network for internal com— munication. It is evident that the communication network established under a PPB system need not follow traditional communication lines such as from superintendent to assistant superintendent to building principal tO staff. Thus, the system produces a number of alternatives for communication between staff members. . . . The joint estab- lishment Of Objectives and determination Of pro- gram under the PPBS approach requires staff involve- ment. If the administrators' aspirations are for total staff involvement in the decision-making process it can be accomplished most reasonably and effectively through the systematic PPBS approach. --AliotO and Jungherr, 1971: 14 Performance Criteria "Performance criteria" is used, in the PPB system, interchangeably with such terms as "measures Of performance," "performance level," "indicator," "criteria," and "effectiveness performance." Theoretically, the ideal would be to find a single measure Of the output of the system and to relate all activities to that final measure Of effectiveness. In the case Of education and other complex public services, there is reason to question the validity Of the theoretical ideal, and as a practical matter, there is no known way to produce a single, valid measure Of educational output. Under these circumstances, a better approach is tO 8O identify indicators of major variables subject to partial, if not complete, control Of the Ministry of Education which, when interpreted by exPerienced administrators and policy Officials, indicate possible needed action. Examples Of such indicators now in use by education administrators include variations Of teacher-pupil ratio, achievement scores, age-group attendance rate, unit costs, student flow, etc. Evaluation The process Of planning, programming, and budgeting is repeated annually in the PPBS so that planned action is regularly revised in view Of actual experience in carrying out the first year of the multi— year plan. Thus the PPBS approach provides a systematic way Of helping the organization keep its plans and actions up to date. (Government Studies Center, 1969: 13) Program review is a year-round process Of evaluating and revising program Objectives, performance, and costs. It makes the planning- programming-budgeting system a dynamic procedure. Hartley (1968) suggests that the organizational structure should mandate periodic updating by means of planning calendars so that recommendations can be made within the annual budget cycle. The evaluative criteria should be developed to aid decision makers at all levels within the system. (page 98) PPBS Procedures for the Development of A Five-Year Plan The PPBS approach covers the whole range Of procedures from gathering data, defining the problems and basic Objectives to the selection of courses Of action and budgeting——all part of disciplined 81 way of thinking about plans and Objectives. The approach can be viewed as proceeding in steps. These steps are a description Of the functions involved; however, they do not necessarily occur in the Order described and are not necessarily performed independently. The cycle of events for the PPBS procedure is shown in Figure 5.4. The effort Of planning, programming, and budgeting is a never ending and continuous process. The procedures to the left of the diagonal line are the planning, programming, and budgeting steps. Those in the lower right are the general processes carried out on a day-to-day basis to control and guide the ongoing Operations. It is assumed that these processes will produce data which is recorded in a data base within the management information system. I Step l: Gather Data, Summarize Existing Conditions The PPBS procedure starts with data gathering and computational efforts designed to describe environments in which the Ministry Of Education and other educational institutions will Operate over the next five years. All aspects of the education components will be charac- terized, such as enrollments, revenues, personnel, facilities, and equipment. These data are entered into the data base for use in subse- quent.planning effort. The next task is to extract data from the data base and summarize it in a form suitable for the subsequent planning steps. The output Of this procedure will be descriptions Of the existing conditions Of educa— tion Of the province and the aggregation Of the nation. The data resulting from this step are recorded in the data base. 82/ 33:: .525 33:3 £3638 523% 5:3: 543203 8.36 8.: e83.- "3325 25m gang”; < nanny—(Em mom man—mug: mam; quhuonbnluzgwommloszzfium no 5038:»: flammUzou a.“ Ewan llllllllllllllllllll IV AlnllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .I um: <55 4 _ IIIIIII IIIIIII I._ _ _ a... +1: llllllll J . _ beam scuuweuousu uuueowecs: _ I\\\\\\\V . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ uuuonom . _ . unwuenono . . I IIIII IIIII _ _ IIIIII J _ _ _ _ a: J .1 1-:1IJJ _ .1uuul _ _ t e _ _ e _ _ o>auucnuuu usnu>ou sues we L suns um euoco>wuuou _ a u numvsn [MutanOu muse . unauuaunou Aeneas ell “mum“u onzauc¢MI| younoun m seem usunwwwwmw all mnuunano o>ounne suenaum van : «an . uuuueaasm was mu>auwnu0uau, mamuwoun .Eeanoun adequmanums sea>ox hwuuoam no~u>oo seamen _ ousum use nosueo _ no doom "a «sum "m nuum "a ovum um noum _ "N noun "a neum _ _ ll IIIIIIIII L FIIIIIJnuuonIIIII 3.35:: eewvaum swoonm 83 Stgp 2: State Assumption, Forecast Enrollment and Estimate Revenue Assumptions about environment are stated which may affect educa- tion in the next five years. These assumptions will serve as a base for the next task--the forecast of enrollments, revenues and other forms Of the education program. These forecasts provide estimates of factors important to the future activities of the province and the Ministry of Education and, therefore, are indispensable to this decision process. These forecasts are entered into the data base for use in subsequent planning effort. Step 3: Define Problem, Establish Objectives and Desired Performance Criteria, Specify Constraints Next is to define problems and to establish policy guidelines. This is carried out by the highest decision-making body and includes four distinct phases. 1. Define problem: those issues that may have arised during the current school year or are anticipated in future years are defined. 2. Establish gpals and Objectives: the task is to develop sets of overall goals and specific Objectives for educational development. Clear distinction must be made between goals, as general statements Of ideals expressed in abstract terms, and Objectives, as specific aims, measureable and achievable, which may require reformulation under given circumstances: Objectives are Obtained by applying preestablished standards to a set of overall goals. C. H. Granger (196a: 63-7u) suggested the following criteria for good Objectives: 1. The Objective should be a guide to action. This should be not only a guide to action but also an impetus for the decision making process and the organization to act. 84 2. Objectives should be stated so that courses of action are suggested which will satisfy the given Objectives. 3. The Objective should be explicit enough to enable one tO measure whether the Objective is being realized. 4. An Objective should be challenging. Some people suggested that one's Objectives should be set in a manner that they can never be reached. Perhaps this is unrealistic. Success in reaching Objectives can provide motivation tO acquire other goals or objectives. 5. An Objective should be cognizant Of external and internal constraint which the environment places on the system. 6. An Objective should be capable Of being related to other Objectives at higher or lower levels in the organization. When educational Objectives are set, Granger suggested in the same source, the environment in which we exist must be understood as well as some notion Of the courses Of action which are or will be available as means Of achieving these Objectives. Furthermore, there must exist a hierarchy of Objectives in any Operating system. The hierarchy should lead from the top or very broad type Of Objective down through the organization to extremely specific and well-defined Objectives at the Operating levels. Appendix A.l shows examples Of what have been described in this section. 3. Establish desired performance criteria: Criteria are selected which measure how well are Objectives being met and determine when those objectives have been reached. Appropriate yardsticks are essen— tial to setting goals, making improvements in schedules. 85 / The criterion is the thing that the analyst is trying to Optimize. It must be specified carefully and, in the case Of systems analysis, specified with mathematical precision. It is an expression Of the over- all goal. (Mood, 1967: 23) 4. Identify constraints: since a system is a part Of larger system, there will always be things that do not change and cannot be changed in any reasonable period. They are known as constraints and range from fixed budgets, existing rules, and laws to firmly estab- lished traditions which may serve a real purpose or may have little value, but not yet are ripe for breaking. These constraints must be identified and taken into consideration if planning is to be effective. Other con- trollable and uncontrollable variables must also be specified. Uncon- trollable variables include things like the weather and population trends, which may indeed undergo spectacular changes but are not under the decision—makers' control. The planner is naturally concerned above all with introducing innovations and hastening or retarding the pace Of events, with those elements which he can change in efforts tO get results. These are controllable variables. See Appendix A.l Step 4: Develop Programs and Project Sets Using the output resulting from step 3--pOlicy guidelines and Objectives, as base, the potential programs and projects are developed. These programs and projects are proposed which should improve the Operation of the Ministry Of Education and eliminate or reduce the problem areas. This step Of PPBS procedures is called program struc— 86 turing. The develOpment of structural aspect of PPBS, according to Haggart (1971: 2), includes such activities as: . Define broad goals . Define Operational Objectives . Identify activities . Define programs . Define program elements . DevelOp program structure (Group activities) In order to understand and analyze the province's or the Ministry's activities a hierarchical classification scheme must be provided. This scheme should be the framework for organizing provincial activities into relatively small number Of programs that can be sub- divided intO more narrowly defined levels. The first level of program structure should be general in nature and move to levels two, three, four, etc., with the activities under each level becoming more narrowly specified. Figure 5.5 shows classification of program structure. [ PROGRAM STRUCTURE PURPOSES -€J PROGRAMS "(=—-r ACTIVITIES GOALS SUB-PROGRAMS PROGRAM ELEMENTS PROGRAM COST USERS OF RESOURCES ~----—--—------ (LINE—ITEM PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS EXPENDITURES) FIGURE 5.5 NATURE OF THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE Source: Haggart, 1971, p.3 87 Figure 5.6 shows a hierarchical classification scheme Of program structure and its example. Further illustratiOns will be found in Appendices A.2, A.3, A.4. Level Classification Program Structure: I Program Instructional Support II Sub-program Instructional Administration III .Program Element Instructional Supervision IV Activities Supervision In-service Training Professional Leave III Program Instructional Evaluation IV Activities Evaluation In-service Training Professional Leave III Program Element Instructional Improvement IV Activities In-service Training Professional Leave FIGURE 5.6 A HIERARCHICAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME OF PROGRAM STRUCTURE According to Alioto and Jungherr (1971), there are two approaches for structuring the programs, descriptive and prescriptive. Descriptive Program Structure: this type of program structure is based on existing activities Of the organization. The process includes grouping the existing activities of the province or the Ministry according to apparent similarity of purpose. Once the activities have been brought together according to purpose, then the 88 groups may be assembled into larger program aggregates. This process involves starting at the lower levels of the hierarchy with the more specific aetivities and working them through a regrouping process into the higher levels Of the program structure. . Prescriptive Program Structure: this program structure is develOped around objectives of the organization. The province or the Ministry begins the installation of PPBS by stating,the Objectives, then the basis for establishing the program structure should be the groupings Of Objectives that have been Specified and agreed upon. The Objectives can be subcategorized into more specific Objectives that in turn provide the various levels Of hierarchy for the program structure. The prescriptive approach defines programs according to a concep- tion what schools ought to be doing. The descriptive approach identifies programs and Objectives inductively from relationships among actual, ongoing activities. ’As stated in a previous section, once a formal resolution endorsing the concepts Of PPBS is passed, a PPBS task force should be assigned the overall responsibility for the Operationalization Of the PPB system. This should be done at both provincial and national levels. The task force has the authority to establish subcommittees. The establishment of Objectives, program structures, program analysis, and performance of other activities in the PPBS processes will be done by this task force through its subcommittees. Step 5: Specify Alternatives, Analyze Cost-Effectiveness Of Each Alternative ‘This step can be divided into two distinctive phases. 89 l. Specify Alternatives: alternatives for each established Objec- tive are identified. Generally, there are a number of different ways Of carrying out each Objective and of bringing it into a better relation- ship with other parts Of the total educational system. Once Objectives have been defined, uncontaminated by specified means, the PPBS approach requires an analysis of the precondition that will bring about the desired result--and the precondition that will bring about this precon- dition, and so on. Henry Chauncey (in Umans, 1971: 33) indicates that the analysis proceeds backward from the stated goal by asking, in great detail and stage by stage, exactly what must take place before the end result can be eXpected to occur. It is through this backward analysis, and the examination of the multitude of alternatives at each stage, that the Optimal means to the desired ends emerge. Only then can a detailed plan of movement from present condition to targeted goal be drawn up. This way the plan itself can be tested before implementation. The necessity for more than one possible courses Of action as a means of Obtaining the Objectives of the organization is obvious. Ackoff (in Andrew and Moir, 1970: 12-13) refers to two types of activities with regard tO alternative courses Of action: (1) the search Of activity in which various alternatives exist but they are not Obvious to the decision maker, (2) the development activity, if none of the existing course Of action will Obtain the desired Objectives or the desired level Of performance, the other courses of action must be created. According to Greenhouse (1966: 276), there are two types Of alternatives: (1) "program alternatives:" is output-related; it suggests substituting entirely different program (and therefore a 90 different output) for a program already planned or in progress; and (2) "alternative ways to do a given job:" is input-related. It takes the program as given, and raises possibilities for changing the mix of inputs, and thereby redirecting the program. Viewed in other way, the first involves policy questions, which the second involves Operational matters. The Parma City Schools "Seventh Grade Social Studies" Program in Appendix A.l shows alternatives for the established goals and Objectives. 2. Analyze Cost-Effectiveness of each Alternative: several authors call this phase a "program analysis." It is a process where all alternatives for an Objective are evaluated and compared-—Often by cost-benefit studies and from which a preferred course of action is selected. This is a crucial step for decision makers to make and bring about prudent decisions. It may mean the success or failure, superiority or inferiority Of the plan chosen to implement. In reality, Fisher stated (Lyden and Miller, 1972: 270), most major long-range planning decision problems must ultimately be resolved primarily on the basis Of intuition and judgment. He suggests that the main role of analysis should be to try to sharpen this intuition and judgment. The analysis should be directed toward assisting the decision-maker in such a way that his intuition and judgment are better than it would be without the results of the analysis. Cost—effectiveness analysis possesses many characteristicS: l. A most fundamental characteristic is the systematic examination and comparison of alternative courses of action that might be taken to achieve specified Objectives for some future time period. Not only is it impor— 91 tant tO systematically examine all Of the relevant alternatives that can be identified initially, but also to design additional ones if those examined are found wanting. Finally, the analysis, particu- larly if thoroughly and imaginatively done, may at times result in modifications of the initially specified Objectives. 2. Critical examination Of alternatives typically involves numerous considerations; but the two main ones are assessment Of the cost (in the sense Of economic resource cost) and the utility (the . benefits or gains) pertaining to each Of the alter- native being compared to attain the stipulated Objectives. 3. The time context is the future (often the distant future-~five, ten, or more years). 4. Because of the extended time horizon, the environment is one Of uncertainty (very Often great uncertainty). Since uncertainty is im- portant facet Of the problem, it should be faced up to and treated explicitly in the analysis. This means, among other things, that wherever possible the analyst should avoid the use Of simple eXpected value models. 5. Usually the context in which the analysis takes place is broad (Often very broad) and the environment very complex, with numerous inter- actions among the key variables in the problem. This means that simple, straightforward solu- tions are the exception rather than the rule. 6. While quantitative methods of analysis should be used as much as possible, because of items 4 and 5 above, purely quantitative work must often be heavily supplemented by qualitative work and of using an appropriate combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. 7. Usually the focus is on research and development and/or investment-type decision problems, although Operational decisions are sometimes encountered. This does not mean, Of course, that Operational considerations are ignored in dealing with RED and investment-type problems. 92 8. Timeliness is important. A careful, thorough analysis that comes six months after the critical time of decision may be worth essentially zero, while a less thorough--but thoughtfully done-- analysis completed on time may be worth a great deal. --Gene A. Fisher (in Lyden 8 Miller, 1972: 269-270) The cost—effectiveness analysis comprises such elements as Objec- tive or Objectives, alternatives, costs or resources uSed, a model or models, and performance criteria. The elements Of analysis become inputs to the process Of the analysis as shown in Figure 5.7. The process begins with the alternatives to be evaluated. These are examined within the model that represents the input-output or the resource-effectiveness relationships of the system. It tells what can be expected from each alternative. Essentially, it shows the pp§£_ Of the alternative and the contribution of the alternative in meeting an Objective. Criteria are then used to weigh the cost against per- formance. (Haggart, 1972: 154) The criteria are based on suitability, feasibility, acceptability and judgment. Special studies may be needed for each criterion. The important feature in the diagram is the screening or sorting gate which is controlled by selection criteria. An alternative is firstly examined for suitability. If it is unsuitable course of action, it will be dropped. The retained, suitable courses Of action are subjected to feasibility study. The same process applies for acceptability study and judgment. (Mottley, 1972: 136) The purpose is not to determine one ratio Of effectiveness tO cost for an alternative but rather to rank alternatives to provide a part Of the basis for selection among them. Ammnumxaflv newsman can .Annauuxanv Rosana: .xkuooaav «ease acne tongues "ouuaom mumsqHHem_ "he voucaoum 170 fizz/\W‘Il A$\i £4 moow>uom e>wueuumasfisv< OH m m h c n e m N a nonssz , unsouu< amuse namuwoum ounuflvsmmum mo saga he uowvsn “awe: Hmaoaueosmm unflzmmomu z