Keyword

Education is a dynamic and innovative process. Throughout history, it has been affected by various social and scientific developments and has been exposed to change and innovation, which have resulted in its present form. The importance of preparing a training plan for increasing the effectiveness of educational institutions and of determining the necessary strategies for being able to apply those plans is increasing daily. The prepared education plans are expected to contribute to the sustainability of school development. Managing, changing, and improving organizational conditions; participating in decision making; and learning and teaching strategies by appropriately evaluating organizational culture are necessary in this context. Here, the biggest role falls upon school leaders. Developing vision and mission, preparing and implementing school development plans and strategies, improving organizational climate, creating communities that feel a sense of belonging to the institution, keeping communication channels open, increasing and ensuring coordination, developing critical thinking skills, being innovative, and managing change most of all can be considered as the competencies expected from school leaders of the twenty-first century. In today’s world where change happens quickly, leaders prefer online methods that will facilitate the institution’s adaptation to the environment more quickly for meeting the changing needs of society. In this direction, the features of Education 4.0, which has emerged as the current education paradigm, will bring education systems closer to the center of life. This center is expected to have school culture and values that include change in a way that can adapt to society. Education 4.0 can be stated to have a structure that supports coordinated work by replacing the competitive cultural understanding with the collaborative cultural understanding. Having leaders contribute to the organization’s adaptation to the use of technology in managerial processes by responding to global needs is important.

Historical Process of the Management Concept

As old as human history, the concept of management (Mandell et al., 1981) emerged with changing perspectives, beliefs, and goals in different civilizations and different fields (education, public, organization). The concept of management, having succeeded in making a name for itself by recognizing the Industrial Revolution, spread rapidly toward the end of the eighteenth century, especially in Europe. When examining the developmental process of management theories, they are seen to be discussed under three headings (Etzioni, 1964): the classical management approach, the human relations approach, and the structuralist approach. While putting forward the scientific management theory based on organizational efficiency, Taylor (1919) shared his belief that supervision activities should be maintained at a high level. Targeting the maximum production capacity, Taylor stated that workforce losses might be able to be minimized by following scientific methods. In this respect, the classical management approach ignores the social and psychological dimensions of the organization (Bursalıoğlu, 2010). Therefore, the educational administrator of today can be stated to have moved away from classical educational theories, to be sensitive to the social and psychological dimensions of the school, and to have roles and responsibilities that enable and direct the development of culture in communication with their environment.

Traditional management approaches can be stated to emphasize functionality rather than social perspective. Functional hierarchical management has been expressed as the basic management paradigm for nearly 200 years (Jamali, 2005). The classical management system can meet needs when markets, products, and technologies change slowly (Turner & Keegan, 1999). Rapid globalization has been one of the most striking aspects of the new century, especially since the rapid development of information technology in the last two decades (Brown, 1999). The weaknesses and limitations of the system have gradually emerged with globalization and technological innovations. The management paradigm an administrator adopts is effective in overcoming those limitations. In cases where administrators adopt the modern management paradigm, the difficulties and limitations related to adapting to innovations are considered to be overcome more easily.

Establishing and developing relationships based on rationality are important for managing change effectively. The new perspective on management in the twenty-first century is based on the ability to cope with constant change, not stability, and is built upon work networks, changing partnerships, alliances, and technological advantages rather than hierarchies (Carnall, 2003). The new management paradigm comes together around teamwork, participation and learning, communication, integration, cooperation and collaboration with stakeholders and suppliers through close interaction; it adopts guiding principles that foster a new understanding with evolving elements such as value creation, quality, sensitivity, agility, innovation, integration, and team building (Jamali, 2005). New organizations consist of complex networks based on virtual rather than vertical integration, interdependence instead of independence, and mass privatization rather than mass production (Greenwald, 2001). Effectively and efficiently managing those networks is possible in organizations that are constantly changing and opposed to traditional education and management paradigms.

Management of Change in Schools

The rapidly changing technological, sociological, and economic environment creates new challenges for structuring and managing organizations (Jamali, 2005). Those changes can be considered as numerous manifestations of a paradigm shift currently occurring in management and leadership approaches (Luksha & Kinsner, 2020). In this context, institutions operating in the knowledge economy should benefit from increasing knowledge, technology, and engineering developments as well as new skills and dynamic competencies (Liyanage & Poon, 2002). As one of those institutions, schools are open social systems that develop under the influence of changes in most areas as being the communities of practice that implement the innovations (Liyanage & Poon, 2002).

When faced with new problems and new scientific models that force them to produce solutions, communities of practice need a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 2012). While the first of the rational or political strategies to manage schools before the 1990s had assumed that schools would change as a result of exposing educators to new programs or new teaching methods, the second assumed that teachers and administrators were either unable or unwilling to initiate change (Kowalski, 2000). This is thought to be the reason why previous innovations had been unable to radically change education, despite schools being open systems importing new inputs from other systems for survival (Rodney, 2020). In this case, the proposed changes are often rejected when they conflict with the traditional role expectations of educators who resist innovation (Sarason, 1996). When innovations are not adopted by practitioners, the planned transformation is unrealizable. To prevent this, policies are needed for explaining innovations to stakeholders and helping them adopt the innovations.

The process of managing school change today is quite complex. School leaders play an important role as they are responsible for the management and implementation of this complex process. Because managing change consists of target-setting plans aimed at improving pre-determined standards, research on education system reforms is stated to have been focused on short-term planning in the last two decades. However, short-term planning needs to be incorporated into a longer-term planning framework that supports the strategic development of a school, say a period of 3–5 years (Davies & Ellison, 2003). When considering the goal to be achieving school development, educational planning seems to focus on establishing organizational structures that sustain change in education, particularly for improving student learning outcomes while at the same time contributing to a school’s capacity to manage change (Hoque et al., 2011). Planning and structuring education in the context of innovations is expected to be more effective as long as those focal points are considered.

Current thinking about the structuring of innovations is based on the judgment that schools are complex social institutions and that the restructuring of schools requires a social systems perspective (Chance, 2000). By adopting new inputs, the educational institution makes innovation a part of itself (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Educational communities work to develop an open climate with policies and structures that support the participation of community members, educators, students, families, and wider community members (Wang & Degol, 2016). Similarly, making modular technology types that enable all stakeholders to access learning will be possible if education policies allow such innovations (Rodney, 2020). In this context, if schools and the environment are to be improved, they should be considered as complex entities consisting of interrelated and interacting parts. This point of view reveals the fallacy of blaming the lack of education on a single factor. More importantly, reforming education by manipulating only one or two elements of the system has been demonstrated to be futile (Kowalski, 2000). Reforms might not be possible to be successful until they start to be consistent with policy arrangements, and social, technological, and economic realities (Rodney, 2020). In this respect, it might be stated that the successful realization of reforms depends on the coherence between policies and realities. Realizing reforms seems more applicable in contemporary management paradigms that are open to innovation compared to traditional management paradigms.

Current Paradigms in Management and School Leadership

The idea that dominates the traditional paradigm involves increasing institutional productivity and managing available resources in a static and stable technological environment (Khalil, 2000). This mechanical orientation has dominated most institutions in the past and is still common, especially in developing countries (Jamali, 2005). However, while the traditional paradigm accepts labor as a concept to be bought, consumed, and discarded when appropriate, the innovative management approach requires empowerment, focus on teamwork, careful support for and effective management of human resources (Jamali, 2005). The last decade has witnessed an important evolution of management paradigms and approaches all over the world, and a transition has been stated to occur from a centralized, hierarchy-oriented management paradigm to a local, distributed, and network-oriented management paradigm (Luksha & Kinsner, 2020). In this context, school management is concerned with maintaining school activities, while school leadership also includes concerns about individual development, shaping of their attitudes and behaviors, and improving school performance (Bush & Glover, 2004). Pont et al. (2008) summarized school leaders’ duties as follows:

  1. 1.

    Defining learning goals and evaluating student performance by setting school goals in accordance with national and international standards, using data to measure progress, and making necessary interventions to help students reach their potential.

  2. 2.

    Using resources strategically and harmonizing all activities in the school to achieve the goal of excellence in teaching and learning.

  3. 3.

    Interacting with other stakeholders and communities outside of school such as policy makers, universities, communities, and social institutions to create value through mutual support.

School leadership is one of the areas of study addressed in the context of current paradigms in educational administration. New paradigms and approaches are stated to support organizational structures with less management layers compared to rigid, multi-layered, and vertical hierarchical organizations (Benveniste, 1994). In the age of Industry 4.0 in particular, changing global conditions such as productivity requirements, urgent need for continuous learning and advanced digital technologies require new approaches to educational leadership (Lappalainen, 2015). Although the need for effective school leadership is widely accepted within the scope of Education 4.0, which is the reflection of Industry 4.0 on education, uncertainties exist about which leadership behaviors are likely to produce positive results. In order to eliminate those uncertainties, the necessary leadership competencies should be determined first (Kin & Kareem, 2019). In this context, determining school leadership competencies is considered important in terms of how schools adapt to the age of Education 4.0.

Leadership development research in recent years has been proceeding toward determining the leadership competencies for achieving organizational goals (Shet et al., 2017). In the most general sense, school leadership can be stated to be related to strategic leadership in the context of Education 4.0. The concepts of change and innovation are emphasized in strategic leadership, and those key concepts are used to ensure the sustainability of corporate development. The leaders who will provide the conditions for strengthening communication networks, using technology effectively, and ensuring knowledge management efficiently are needed within the context of change and innovation in the field of education management in Education 4.0.

New Industry (Industry 4.0) and Education 4.0

Transformations and innovations in various fields from past to present have also directed the changes in different fields. Industry 4.0 is also considered one of the transformations currently taking place. It focuses on developing systems that are compatible with the needs of people and production through smart technologies based on individualization, flexibility, localization, resource efficiency, automation, digitalization, and networking (Lasi et al., 2014). Industry 4.0, which creates a global difference, brings some difficulties with it. Considering that difficulties such as digital culture, lack of training, lack of support from other administrators, undetermined economic benefits of investments in digital technologies, and high financial investment requirements (Slusarczyk, 2018) affect all areas of life, those should be carefully examined in terms of the future of education and training.

One of the paradigms shaping the future of education is the concept of Education 4.0, which includes the use of technology in the teaching and learning process and is inspired by Industry 4.0 (Anggraeni, 2018). When examining the transformations in industry and education, the period up to the present can be seen to have been handled through four different paradigms (Demartini & Benussi, 2017). The Education 1.0 paradigm provides a traditionally explanatory model in which measurement was mainly based on written and verbal evaluations. The Education 2.0 paradigm reveals the importance of projects developed with open-source software technologies in the context of institutions and classrooms. In Education 3.0, social networks play a key role in creating a more open environment where students’ creativity and participation are encouraged outside of course and institutional boundaries. Finally, Education 4.0 is presented as a rising paradigm and structure in which learning models are adapted and customized according to learner profiles. In this context, the Internet of Things (IoT), virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and artificial intelligence (AI) are emphasized as the tools that provide Education 4.0 (Popenici & Kerr, 2017). Among those tools, IoT is one of the tools through which developing Internet technologies are reflected onto education in many ways.

The rapid spread of the Internet in the modern age has enabled the structures and objects around individuals to use the Internet effectively. One cannot deny IoT’s functionality in individuals’ lives as it is used as one of the most important resources of the Industry 4.0 era. Technology integration in education has opened the doors of Education 4.0, and Education 4.0 offers some models for how to use IoT. Bagheri and Movahed (2017) stated that IoT usage in an education-oriented context will improve students’ health status, classroom access, and teaching-learning processes. As a result, Education 4.0 as offered by Industry 4.0 ensures that education is maintained in a more open-to-communication, efficient, and student-centered context.

In this context, the advantages of Education 4.0 can be defined as follows (Kassim & Teng, 2018):

  • Education anytime and anywhere: Students can have interactive learning environments and tools.

  • Personalized learning: Learning autonomously will improve students’ individual learning process.

  • Project-based learning: As most employment focuses on applied areas, students are offered learning activities based on projects and case studies.

  • Mentoring: Even though the education system is in a virtual environment, the mentor is expected to facilitate the process. Mentoring helps students adapt to the system.

  • Learner autonomy: Students are responsible for learning processes.

Those advantages facilitate the understanding of school leadership functions in Education 4.0 and shape school leadership practices. School leadership in Education 4.0 includes the different knowledge, skills, and practices based on the characteristics of Education 4.0. When considering knowledge, skills, and practices together, the competencies that school leaders are expected to have become evident.

School Leadership in Education 4.0

Pedagogy in Education 4.0 has been developed to respond to the demands of Industry 4.0 and has given new impetus to the transformations in education in terms of content, curriculum, and education management (Kin & Kareem, 2019). This dramatic change has caused changes in the future of education (Kassim & Teng, 2018). Managing change involves the competence school leaders have to encourage change, to enable and support others to change, and to make change sustainable (Kin & Kareem, 2018). In the context of Education 4.0, school leadership is regarded as a process that takes place within the framework of technology, communication, cooperation, problem-solving, innovation, professional development, and school leaders’ competencies.

The change that first took place with Education 4.0 included directing education in non-traditional ways with technology-based tools and resources instead of traditional teaching materials (Tang et al., 2015). As an example of this, technology leadership competencies and performance evaluations are able to be done with technology tools (Banoğlu et al., 2016). In this context, technology is regarded as one of the keywords emphasized in Education 4.0.

One of the biggest advantages of Education 4.0 is the ability to realize effective and fast communication. Communication refers to how school leaders can effectively advance their vision and beliefs through direction, words, and actions to achieve school goals (Smith & Riley, 2012). Traditional management is based on theories from Fayol, Taylor, and Weber, which are based on stability and therefore tend to determine central decision-making processes and hierarchical communication channels (Jamali, 2005). Considering the need to implement quality processes and improvement in schools, relationships and communication can be thought of as the basic features in institutions (Jefferson & Anderson, 2017). Communication is also important in making decisions that facilitate transformation in schools because decision-making processes have become more and more interactive (Smoliar & Sprague, 2003). In this context, four of the conditions that leaders must provide in order to develop a school environment that facilitates transformations are based on interpersonal relationships. Those conditions are listed as commitment to collaborative planning, student and community involvement in school policies and decisions, creation of effective coordination strategies, and professional development (Ainscow et al., 2000). Accordingly, communication can be stated to play a key role in today’s educational paradigms. Keeping the communication channels open and managing the communication process transparently facilitate cooperation in education management and problem-solving.

Transforming the education system from a system based on facts and procedures to a system based on cooperation and active problem-solving is the main feature of Education 4.0 (Kin & Kareem, 2019). Education 4.0 sets a different future level for today’s generation of students. Technology is changing the production system in human nature. Working in the virtual environment while collaborating on productivity and developing new skills are trends in the emerging technological change in the new era (Kassim & Teng, 2018). School administrators must respond to those needs with sufficient competencies to be effective leaders who can bring schools to the frontier of transformation. The task of a school leader includes setting up systems that increase capacities and forming collaborations to achieve teaching goals (Ng & Chan, 2014). Meanwhile, those collaborative structures support a school enriched in terms of learning by affecting performance positively (Fullan, 2010). The new educational approach provides a school environment where innovations are encouraged, and students are located at the center of this process.

Education 4.0 is believed to empower students in terms of innovations; thus, increasing their success levels and learning outcomes. In addition, as teachers and other professional staff are at the center of the educational community, support and professional development for teachers is crucial in any school development process (Díez et al., 2020). In order to meet the increasing demands for excellence in education, school administrators can become effective leaders by systematically and continuously gaining new knowledge, skills, and abilities through effective professional development programs or interventions (Kin & Kareem, 2019). Having leaders who steer innovation adopt approaches that will keep school stakeholders and themselves open to continuous improvement is important.

Certain competencies exist that school leaders are expected to have in order to achieve school leadership in the context of Education 4.0. Kin and Kareem (2019) summarized those competencies as follows:

  • Communication: Communication is the social issue in which realizing differences in understanding among parties is the primary priority (Kin & Kareem, 2019). Communication is one of the basic building blocks of educational administration in the new paradigm.

  • Collaboration: In the contemporary paradigm, education leaders assume school development and effectiveness to be more of a collective initiative than an individual initiative (Kin & Kareem, 2019). In the context of Education 4.0, the school leader is expected to move away from being the sole decision maker and to involve others in the decision-making process in a way that increases the effectiveness of the school (Slater, 2005).

  • Critical thinking: Critical thinking is a necessary component of school change because school leaders who are powerful critical thinkers can see events from different perspectives (Kin & Kareem, 2019). School leaders who are critical thinkers are needed in the new paradigm.

  • Creativity and innovation: Creativity is the ability to think differently and design new ideas, methods, materials, products, and actions; innovation involves the creation of new combinations of new knowledge or old insights in order to make a concrete and useful contribution to increasing the effectiveness of the school (Mainemelis et al., 2015). In the new paradigm, school leaders have to be creative and innovative.

  • Decision making: In the new paradigm, talented school leaders are defined as individuals who can optimize their beliefs, responsibilities, and obligations in order to make the right decisions to minimize negative consequences (Kin & Kareem, 2018).

  • Problem solving: Since the school leaders are the individuals who spend a lot of time to solve instructional problems at school and whose performance in solving those problems has a visible effect on the academic success of students, leaders are assumed to need the skills to use certain procedures to help achieve those goals (Kin & Kareem, 2018).

  • Entrepreneurship: Having school leaders be equipped with the competence of entrepreneurship is said to be important as it helps them be sensitive to contextual problems (Kin & Kareem, 2018).

  • Technology: Although the age of Education 4.0 is all about integrating digital technology, the main task of school leaders with high levels of digital literacy is how to increase the meaningful use of technology pedagogically (Kin & Kareem, 2018).

Based on those explanations, the features of Education 4.0 and the equivalence of those features in school leadership are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 The features of Education 4.0 and school leadership
Full size table

Use of Internet-of-Things in Education Management

In the context of digitalization, changing traditional interaction models is among the main topics of education (Frolova et al., 2020). The Internet of Things (IoT) technology provides new opportunities and perspectives to education in all aspects. In this context, modern education based on digital technologies is a process in which not only knowledge and skills but also self-awareness and personal values are produced (McLay & Renshaw, 2020). IoT technology shows a radical break in educational understanding from our past.

IoT technology challenges the universal success models and reveals new problems and solutions in the field of education as much as it sets the background for the information technologies and communication revolutions of the late twentieth century. IoT can provide meaningful information about how and when students and school staff can access the school (Rodney, 2020). This customized learning process enables students to monitor their performance analytically (Kassim & Teng, 2018). IoT can also monitor students’ illnesses, sleep, and general well-being for school attendance and demonstrate proactive approaches that can support parents and school staff (Rodney, 2020). Bagheri and Movahed (2017) stated that IoT technology plays an important role in the following issues: monitoring the learning ecosystem through wearable technologies students use; ensuring school security using classroom registration systems and digital ID cards; monitoring students’ health status with smart wristbands or watches; contributing to the creation of the most appropriate physical conditions for learning in the classroom with the help of sensors and reducing training costs by conserving energy; increasing comfort in the education process by creating appropriate physical conditions in learning environments; individualized teaching and learning; increasing student collaboration with mobile devices and virtual learning environments. IoT is thought to change three basic features in the current education system: the reduction of control-based hierarchies, the replacement of financing and standardization-based homeostasis through efficiency, and the more tightly linking educational purpose with student learning (Rodney, 2020). The realization of that change can ensure a quick and effective continuation of the managerial process, emphasize individual assessment, and structure a student-oriented education system.

IoT as a concept works in harmony with various technological structures. Those structures contribute to academic and social planning in addition to monitoring processes. Technological structures are seen to have importance in different fields such as data security, information storage, provision of virtual learning environments, support for individual learning, creation of new pedagogical paradigms, and rearrangement of financial strategies. Various examples are found on the use IoT in educational administration and teaching. Quick Response (QR) codes are one of the most common examples of IoT usage areas. QR codes which are known as a two-dimensional barcodes, are the most frequent and affordable of identification technologies in the world and can store up to 7,089 characters of information (Budak et al., 2018). Those codes are also useful in associating any resource with an online resource. On the other hand, its weak data security, degradation caused by harsh environments, and read-only capability are the main weaknesses of this technology (Budak et al., 2018). Students can receive academic and social feedback by scanning QR codes with their smartphones (Mershad & Wakim, 2018). Radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is another widely used area in IoT. Unlike barcodes that need to be directed toward a scanner to read, RFID tags can store a larger amount of data that can be quickly transmitted, rewritten, and encrypted many times in addition to being readable without line-of-sight requirements as long as they are within the range of the reader (Budak et al., 2018). Shan et al. (2016) emphasized RFID technology to have become widespread through mobile technologies and to contribute to the individualization of learning, based on students’ position. Virtual reality (VR) is one of the technologies whose usage rate has increased in today’s educational environments. IoT-supported VR applications enable lesson simulations and the creation of interactive learning environments (Mershad & Wakim, 2018). Artificial intelligence (AI) is the field of computer science that focuses on the creation of intelligent machines that work and react like humans. AI can be applied to support and improve learning in the creation of smart classrooms that take advantage of IoT (Timms, 2016). AI also has the abilities to learn the aspects and types of interactions as well as pedagogically relate them to relevant contexts, to help teachers more clearly, understand students’ ways of thinking and to be able to easily direct learning, and to share all the data it collects with relevant stakeholders (i.e., students, teachers, administrators) so that metacognitive approaches and possible areas that need to be improved can be deliberated. On the other hand, blockchain technology is one of the prominent structures with current educational uses. Blockchain technology is associated with many stakeholders in the field of education such as students, teachers, employers, and administrators. Tapscott and Tapscott (2017) stated that educational institutions can benefit from blockchain technology in the following areas: (1) ID and student records through secure management of all data belonging to a student enrolled in a training program; (2) new pedagogy by managing enrollments and saving data on courses chosen by students and their learning interactions in order to identify learning patterns, improve teaching, and reveal new learning models; (3) fees and rewards for planning financial strategies and rewarding students for their achievements; and (4) upper education institution model to restructure the educational institution by bringing together the expectations of students and employers on a common ground. As seen in the relevant examples, the concept of IoT is used in various ways in educational institutions at different levels. Integrating technology into education leads to paradigm shifts in learning and education management. Those changes can be stated to be effective at improving the education and training process.

Conclusion

This chapter which examines current educational management and cultural trends addresses the competencies of twenty-first-century educational leaders, the role educational leaders have in cultural orientations, the differences between traditional management understanding and current management paradigms, the use of technology and leaders’ managerial processes in educational administration, and IoT usage that directly and indirectly affect the cultural structure all in the context of Education 4.0. The focal points of the modern management paradigm are improving academic performance, adopting a networked management approach, and designing and adopting innovations and sustainability. The belief in the traditional management paradigm, which is based on school productivity and the stable and static use of resources, has been replaced by microscale development, and school leaders’ emphasis on individual development and local needs in this context. Considering that schools are complex social structures, school administrators with traditional roles can be stated to have difficulty adapting to global conditions. In this context, initiating change and reducing resistance to change are within the scope of the roles and responsibilities of school leaders. The formation of a school culture that can adapt to new inputs and the development of this cultural structure are also the responsibilities expected from school leaders. Education 4.0 can also be said to strengthen the specified innovations and make management processes more efficient.

One of the innovations Education 4.0 brings is to adapt IoT to the educational context. IoT technology can provide instant and multi-dimensional information flow to students, teachers, parents, and administrators. While targets are achieved more quickly and effectively in this context, the use of resources in a school can also be ensured to be kept to a minimum. IoT usage and communications between stakeholders can also be said to be more transparent and quicker. Effectively managing communication processes through the use of IoT, which has become one of the tools of change, will also contribute to sustainable change.

IoT seems important in adapting developing technology to education. IoT’s contributions to the management processes and academic success should not be ignored. IoT is emphasized to contribute to the decrease in the hierarchical structure in the education system, to increase financial efficiency, and to increase students’ acquisitions. IoT, which provides educational leaders with new roles and responsibilities, can also be said will speed up information processing and communication processes. This situation gives new perspectives to leaders and stakeholders and clearly contributes to the production of values and the development of culture. Suggestions for schools to be able to support new managerial and cultural trends and adapt more easily to those trends are stated as follows:

  • When examining the relevant research, ensuring participation in decision-making in the initiation phase of change is believed to increase all stakeholders’ belief in change and their level of adaptability to change.

  • Considering that change occurs as a result of cultural development needs, the change in organizational structure should be handled together with the cultural change process. For this reason, having cultural development be at the center of the change process can be considered as a natural result.

  • In order for schools to cope with the ever-changing realities and adapt to the era, it seems important that leaders ensure their personal development and keep their knowledge and skills up to date.

  • Including adaptation to change, leadership competencies and skills, and cultural change processes in the strategic plans prepared in schools are important in terms of ensuring program integrity.