1

W a is ht
educational planning?
Philip H.Coombs

3is. 3

CGO

I
~

Unesco :International Institute for Educational Planning

Fundamentals of educational planning-1

Included in the series:*
1. What i Educational Planning? s / ' P.H.C o o m b s 2. The Relation of Educational Plans to Economic and Social Planning R. Poignant 3. Educational Planning and H u m a n Resource Development F. Harbison

4. Planning and the Educational Administrator C E. Beeby . 5. The Social Context of Educational Planning C.A. Anderson 6. The Costing o ' Educational Plans j J. Vaizey, J. D.Chesswas 7. The Problems of Rural Education V. L. Griffiths
8 Educational Planning: the Adviser's Role . A d a m Curle

9. Demographic Aspects of Educational Planning T a Ngoc Chlu 1 . The Analysis of Educational Costs and Expenditure 0 J. Hallak 11. The Professional Identity of the Educational Planner A d a m Curie 12. The Conditionsfor Success in Educational Planning G.C. Ruscoe 13. Cost-benefit Analysis in Educational Planning Maureen Woodhall

*Also published in French. Other titles to appear

Coombs ’\ Unesco: International Institute for Educational Planning .JWhat is educational planning? Philip H.

The Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA) has provided financial assistance for the publication of this booklet Published in 1970 by the United Nations Educational.1/A Printed in Belgmm .70/11. 75 Paris-7" Printed by Ceuterick. Scientificand Cultural Organization Place de Fontenoy. Louvain Cover design by Bruno Pfaffli 0Unesco 1970 IIEP.

ifcl So other booklets i the series represent this common experience. are i no sense unsophisticated. n such as senior government o f c a s and civic leaders.the authors il n have been given the d f i u t task of introducing their subjects from ifcl the beginning. But behind t i diversity there is a new and growing unity. n The modern conception of educational planning has attracted specialistsfrom many disciplines. explaining technical terms that may be commonplace t some but a mystery t others.especially i developing countries. except i o n some particular speciality.and others.The purpose of some of the booklets is t help these people explain their particular points of ve to one another and to iw the younger men and women who are being trained t replace them o some day. This n . They are devised t be of o o use either for private study or i formal training programmes. who.r preparing for--educational planning and adminisno tration. f Since readers wl vary so widely i their backgrounds.and n provide i short compass some of the best available ideas and experin ence concerning selected aspects o educational planning.less specialized. Each of them tends t see planning o o rather differently.Fundamentals of educational planning The booklets in t i series are written primarily for two groups: those hs engaged i .who seek a more fiil general understanding of educational planning and of how it can be of help t over-all national development. hs Specialists and administratorsi developing countries are coming t n o accept certain basic principles and practices that owe something to the separate disciplines but are yet a unique contribution to knowledge by a body of pioneers who have had t attack together educational o problems more urgent and d f i u t than any the world had ever known. and yet adhering to scholarly o o standards and never writing down t their readers.

. o the New Zealand Council for Educational Research i Wellington.i the Institute’sv e .Thus.under the general editorship of D .or even contradictions. f n has been planned on a definite pattern.Fundamentals of educational planning approach has the advantage that it makes the booklets i t l i i l nelgbe t the general reader. In short.no attempt has been made t o avoid differences. they are believed t warrant attention i the international o n market-placeof ideas. and may not always be shared by Unesco or the Institute.while the views are the responsibility of the authors. I would be premature. E.i the views expressed by the n authors. o Although the series. t i seems the appropriate moment hs t make v s b e a cross-sectionof the opinions of authorities whose o iil combined experience covers many disciplines and a high proportion of the countries of the world.Beeby r C.t lay down t n iw o a neat and tidy o f c a doctrine i this new and rapidly evolving f e d fiil n il of knowledgeand practice.

Preface

When Philip Coombs and I w r planning this series of booklets nearly ee fiveyears ago, it seemed only logical that No. 1 should be entitled ‘Whati Educational Planning?’,and that he should wie it. That, s rt after a l w s the question those on the sideline-and many deep i l, a n thc game itself-were asking. The fact that it is now appearingjust after No. 13 i the series c l s for comment.The ostensible reason for n al the delay is that,as Director of the newly-establishedTIEP,he was far too busy to wie it; and no one acquainted with his ceaseless activity rt over t i period could reasonably doubt it. But I do,because I happen hs t know that the t m he devoted to the booklet was sufficient to let o ie him w i e it three times over i he had been willing t accept a s a i rt f o ttc concept of h s subject.The troublewas that views on educational plani ning,his own and those of others,were changing so rapidly that by the t m he came to the last paragraph of any draft,in the snatched hours ie he had t spare,he found the first paragraphs,and the approach he had o adopted t the pamphlet as a whole,unsatisfying.The irony of it was o that he himself was i no small measure responsible for the rapidity n of the change,since h s Institutewas the intellectuallyturbulent centre i around which theorists and practical planners were evolving and revising their ideas. D Coombs has finally solved h s problem neatly by coming a his r i t subjecthistorically;by tracing where thinking on educationalplanning has come from he has given an indication of its direction of travel. So,even though events and h s own fertile imagination move on before i the booklet can appear i print, we now have the data on which w n e can extrapolate to find his probable position on planning a year from now.

Preface

Just because the concept of educational planning is still so fluid, everybody engaged i it wl find i t i booklet somethingwith which n il n hs he can disagree, but he wl find very much more that he welcomes il warmly. A an old administrator, for instance, I think the author s rather underestimatesthe amount of f i l systematic long-rangeplanary ning that went on i some good school systems before it was even n respectable i some countries to refer to it as ‘planning’, I gladly n but forgive him that for the new dimension he has given t the subject o and for h s insistence that educational planning is not an esoteric exeri cise for the specialist alone but is, i some measure,part of the proper n work of almost everyone engaged i education. n There can be no one better qualified than D Coombs t wie on r o rt t i topic. Beginning as a professor of economics,he l t r became hs ae Research Director of the Ford Foundation’sFund for the Advancement of Education, and then went on to serve under President John F.Kennedy as Assistant Secretary of State for Education and Cultural Affairs. A t r five and a half years of l v l and imaginative direction fe iey of the IIEP,he resigned a the end of 1968 to devote himself to h s t i own writing but continued for another year as the Institute’sDirector of Research. H has recently joined the new Center for Educational e Enquiry as Director of Studies of Educational Strategy,but still gives some t m t the Institute’s research work. H has written widely on ie o e economics and educational planning,his best-knownbook being The World Educational Crisis: a Systems Analysis. I hope that Philip Coombs wl wie this booklet again a the end il rt t of another five years.

C.E. BEEBY
General editor o the series f

Contents

A few personal words to the reader
Part One

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 11

A n i i i lcharacterization nta
Part T w o

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 14

The ancestry of educationalplanning
Part Three

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 17

Why a new kind of planning became necessary . . . 1. In the industrializednations . . . . . . . 2. In the developing nations . . . . . . . () Wasteful imbalanceswithin the educational system . a (b) Demand f r i excess of capacity . . . . . a n () Costs r s n f s e than revenues . . . . . c iig atr () Non-financialbottlenecks . . . . . . d () Not enoughjobsfor theeducated e . . . . () The wrong kind o education f f . . . . .
Part Four

. . .
. .
.

. 20 . 20 5 . 2
. 26 . 21
.

27 28

.
.

. 28
.

.

. 30

Recent progress i theory and methodology n 1 . The key planning questions . . . 2. The ‘socialdemand’approach . . 3. The ‘manpower’ approach . . . 4. The ‘rate-of-return’ approach . .
Part Five

.

.

.

.

.

.

33

. .
. .

. .
. .

. .
. .

. .
. .

. .
. .

. 34 . 37
. .

4 0 43

Recent progress i putting theory into practice n 1 . Training and research . . . . . 2. Implementing planning . . . . .

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

. 47
.

47

.

.

.

.

. 50

. . 1 . . . .Contents P r Six at A look into the future . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . Refinement of objectives . 58 . . 59 . . . . . . . Intensified research and development . . . N e w management styles and measures . . A systems approach t educational design o 4. 53 55 56 57 . Evaluation of system performance . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . 3.

new training programmes have been set up.A few personal words to the reader People the world over who are concerned with the future of education -political leaders. n The great majority ofthe world’seducationalleadersand governments have by now committedthemselves to the idea ofeducational planning. Before 1950 the t r was scarcely em known i most of the world. It is no wonder that many are pressing for answers t questions such as the o following: What i educational planning? How does it work? H o w much does s it cover? Can it be used everywhere or only i certain places? n W h o are the planners? What do they do? H o w does one become a planner? What are the dangers i planning? And the dangers i n n not planning? H o w does today’s educational planning d f e from earlier forms? ifr W h y was it necessary to find a new kind? How does a country get started?What actual progress has been made? H o w much do the experts r a l know? What are the main areas ely 11 .educational planning still remains a mysl hs tery to most of the people upon whom its success depends. and assorted citizens-are asking many pertinent questionstoday about educational planning. students. And well they might.and a large new professionalliterature is emerging. But since then its popularity has soared. Despite al t i attention. internationalagencies are giving it a top priority. administrators.teachers.social scientistsare doing research on the subject.

and no claim to i f l i i i y is made. il r a e o while not hiding the need for a great deal more. You wl simply find the tentative and partial answers il of one individual.t be encased i any hard and fast definition. W e wl t y l t r t describe some of this progress.subject to the following caveats. But i you consider yourself a novice still looking for answers. this f booklet might help you.much less an acceptable general theory. You wl not find here definitive and authoritative answers to al il l your questions. despite t i new educational hs planning.then to read furthercould waste your time. It is intended as a layman’s introduction to educational planning. This is why no generally accepted definition of educational l planning yet exists. then i what ways must planning be n further strengthened? I you are an expert and already have reasonably satisfactory f answers to these questions. The approachtakenhere is basically historical.is there a world educational c i i ? rss What about the future? Can educationalplanning as it standstoday cope successfully with the formidable problems that lie ahead for educational systems? If not.good for fe o n al time. o hs w wl be better equipped to answer what for us is the operative quese il tion: what kinds of educationalplanning do nations need i the 1 7 s n 90 to help them cope with the enormously d f i u t problems of educaifcl tional development they face i a rapidly changing world? n It follows from what has just been said that little good is l k l to iey come from viewing educational planning as a ‘newscience’or a selfcontained ‘discipline’ entitled t a new box on the university chart o 12 . Being aware of t i heritage. Nevertheless.and scholarsand practitionersof the subject have moved steadily toward greater agreement on many important points.and is far too complex and diversi i d a subject. which he reserves the right t amend l t r The o ae. Educational planning as w know it today is still e too young and growing too rapidly.because i theauthor’s n v e the best way to understand educational planning is to observe iw how it has evolved over t m and taken many forms i many different ie n places t accommodateparticular needs. great progress has l t l been made i both the theory aey n and practice of educational planning. This is not said by nalblt way of apology or through false modesty but simply because this is the way things are. views expressed naturally reflect his particular background and vantage-point.and disagreement? Why.What is educational planning? of agreement.

This would tend t isolateeducational o planning-just as education and pedagogy themselves have for too long been isolated-from the main intellectualcurrents that are their natural source of nourishment.A few personal words to the reader like the boxes occupied by physics.psychology and other recognized academic disciplines. Perhaps the best way t begin our enquiry is by trying t dispel a o o few durable myths and by stating a f w preliminary propositions about e educationalplanning that wl furnish an i i i l frame of reference and il nta promptly expose the author’s predilections.economics. 13 .

Planning is a continuousprocess. But it should ttsis be remembered that a s a i t c is merely the shadow of a fact. I is equally wrong to conceive of educational planning as being t exclusively concerned with the quantitative expansion of education.monolithic formula that must be imposed uniformly on al l situations. o dependingon the circumstances. basic logic. with making things bigger but not different. and ttsi the fact may just as wl be qualitative as quantitative. t but it is more than a m r blueprint.It arises also because planning makes extensive use of s a i t c (when they are available). Its concepts. ee 14 . I is therefore wrong to conceive of educational planning as offering t a rigid.This misconception arises partly because that is how educational planning has s often been o used.is the application of rational. educational planning is ideologically neutral.systematic analysis t the process o of educational development with the aim of making education more effective and e f c e t i responding t the needs and goals of its fiin n o students and society. el Educational planning deals w t the future.and governmental ifr n form.level of development. Seen t i light.and principles are universally applicable.Parr O n e A n i i i l characterization nta Whatever educational planning is. Its hs methodologies are sufficiently flexible and adaptable to fit situations that d f e widely i ideology. but the practical methods for applying them may range from the crude and simple t the highly sophisticated.drawing enlightenment ih from the past. conversely.is it a devil’s potion that breeds only evil. Educational planning.but it is not an inherent limitation. I is the springboard for future decisions and actions. it is certainly not a miracle drug for ailing educational systems nor. i its broadest generic n sense.

nourished by feedback from ut the f r t is. at the state of the society. planning for the next m s be under way.l k ie democraticleaders.Plans are not made t be carved i stone but to be changed and adapted o n as the occasion warrants.to get there.rightnow. One of the central tasks o educao t f tional planning is to determinehow best t keep these intricateinternal o and external relationshipsofthe educational system i reasonablebaln ance under dynamically changing circumstances. where it wants t go. o t Planning is. an integral part of the whole process of educational management.to be effective. must be concerned with its own implementation-with progress made or not made.can find it a useful instrument. or should be. with unforeseen obstaclesthat arise and with how to overcomethem.a high and low levels alike.and not least of al at the innate a i i y ofthe edul blt cationalsystem to examinei s l c i i a l and t take intelligentaction tef r t c l y o t improve is own performance. Planning is not the special sportof dictators-though dictators.and the l k l implications of each.defined i the broadest sense.it i but the handmaiden s s t those who carry such responsibility. n The foregoing.are ideal criteria which no educational 15 .however. To achieve such benefits. As plans for one period move into action.Planning can help to attain iey larger and better aggregate results within the lmt of available iis resources.the various options that are available for pursuing these objectives.their needs.A n initial characterization concerned not only with where to go but with how t get there and o by what best route. They must look.planning must use a wide-angle lens through which a great many interlocking variables can be put i n focus and al of them seen as parts of a dynamic organic whole-as l a system susceptibleof system analysis.Its work does not cease when a plan gets on paper and has won approval. Planning.of course.Itcanhelp the n decision-makersa al levels-from classroom teachers to national t l ministers and parliaments-to make better-informed decisions.planners must first see what room the decision-makers have.a the state of knowledge i s l and the state of the educational t tef art and technology.formanceuvre. So. and what it wl require. for instance. It can do t i by helping them see more clearly the specific objectives i queshs n tion.and to bend them constantly i the required direction.aspirations and practical prospects.before recommending any one course of action.at o il the nature of the students. educationally.For planningperse i not the maker of policies and decisions.

as part of the normal care and feeding of educational institutions. even in these simpler times there had to be some s r ot of planning. at some of the historical anteceil dents of this new educational planning. Prior to the Second World War. But except for t m s of extraordinary social ferment. This is no longer the case. Later we wl examine the kind of impact which these il revolutionary forces have had on education and how a l this has l created the need for a fundamentally new kind of educational planning.What i educational planning? s planning has ever fully lived up to. smaller in size and less intricately tied to the total l f of nations. It wl pay us to look first.or even a special label. But then. Moreover. it ie could be a simple and limited form. however. because l f for educational sysie tems was considerably simpler then than now. 1 6 . educational ie institutions and the world around them were growing and changing a a considerably slower pace. during most of education’s long history it did not need to. None the less. educational systems everywhere were less complex in structure and content. The world of education has been changing rapidly and drastically since the end of the Second World War. Thus there was minimal risk that t serious imbalances and maladjustments might suddenly erupt amongst the constituent parts of an educational system or between the system and its client environment. an inconspicuous and routine aspect of educational administration which hardly warranted the concern of scholars and statesmen. due to a combinationof now familiar revolutionary forces that have shaken the entire world.

500years ago. Plato i h s Republic offered an education plan to serve the n i leadership needs and p l t c l purposes of Athens.prepared a therequestofCatherine11. These early examples emphasize the important function of educational planning i linking a society’s educational system to its goals.(This one even went into such details as when to i f i tcorporalpunishmenton recalcinlc trant p p l ) uis. Xenephon tells ( n the Lacedaemonian i Constitution) how the Spartans. Thus John Knox i the mid-16th Century proposed a plan for a n national system of schools and colleges expressly designed to give the Scots a felicitouscombination of spiritualsalvation and material w l el being. produced a bumper crop of proposals bearing such titles as ‘An Education Plan’ and ‘The Reform of Teaching’.Part Two The ancestry of educational planning Today’s educational planning can claim an unbroken ancestry running back to ancient times. Some l t r examples show how educaae tionalplanning hasbeen resortedt i periods of great social and intelo n lectualfermentt help chaizge a societyto fit new goals.The architects of o such plans were usually creative social thinkers who saw i education n a potent instrumentfor achieving reformsand attaining the ‘goodl f ’ ie.aimed a social reform and u l f . n whatever these goals may be. The heady days of the new liberalism i Europe.some 2. i the l t n n ae 18th and early 19th Centuries. 17 . China during the oiia Han Dynasties and Peru of the Incas planned their education to fit their particular public purposes. One of the best known t pit of these was Diderot’s‘Plan d’une Universitipour l Gouvernement de e Russie’.social and economic objecel tives.planned their education to fit their wl defined military. Anotherwas Rousseau’s t plan for providing an educationto every Polish citizen.

how much money al t i would l hs require.But as educational institutions and systems grew larger and more complex.The planning for a small independent school or college could sometimes have been done on the back of an envelope. but none had a l the features required of o l modern educational planning. by way of illustration. desksand books would be needed to serve them adequately. with the more visible and dramatic examplesjust cited.others i a more democraticand pluralistic milieu.This was educationalplanning.There has been a l along a much more ubiquitous and routine sort of planning which l thoseresponsibleforadministering educationalinstitutionshave always had t do.and how and when it would be spent. The several historical examples of educational planning cited above varied greatly i scope.ever since such institutionsexisted.I was taken for granted as a normal part of the edut cationaladministrator’s job.teachers. Al n l have something t teach. others to individual institutions. These various projections culminated i a proposed n budget for the next academic year and ended ultimately i a series of n decisionsand actions.where the money would come from. o Take. The ancestry oftoday’seducationalplanning does not end.even i it seldom f wore that label. and as the budget and appropriations process became more formal.Each year he was obliged t itit o look ahead and t make various preparations for the next academic o year.and i he was a poor planner he was soon f i trouble.however.the administrative head of a typical local public school d s r c in the 1920s.others involved a continuousprocess over a long period. Though is initial methodologies t w r crude by today’sstandards. the planning process 18 . objectives and complexity.some w r i a highly authoree n itarian setting. of course. Some applied t n o whole nations. A a minimum he had to estimate how many students there t would be.t i Soviet planning experience offers a variety hs of useful technicallessonsfor other countries. n Frequently this process took an extremely simple form.how many classrooms.the F r t Five-YearPlan of is the young Soviet Union in 1923.Its ideological orientation aside.somewere episodic. some undoubtedly were farmore effectivethanothers.What is educational planning? The e r i s modern attempt t employ educational planning t alet o o help realize a ‘newsociety’ was.it was the start of a continuous and ee comprehensive planning process which eventually helped transformin l s than f f y years-a nation which began two-thirds l i e a einto es it iltrt one of the world’s most educationally developed nations.

not of the students and society. T o sum up.ofcourse.The ancestry of educational planning i s l acquired greater sophistication and formality.() it was non-integrated i the 3 n sense that educational institutions w r planned autonomously withee out explicit ties to the evolving needs and trends of the society and economy a large. Therefore the main focus of planning was on the mechanics and logistics of education.The essential aim was to provide for the continuity and v a i i y of educational establishments.the parts of the system were n planned independently of one another.i which case the ul n planning horizon moved forward a b t further).It did. But. By and large.Y t the basic tasks tef e and principles were much the same. The important thing is ar that it worked. on the whole. They were taken as much for granted as ee the a r that was inhaled. Educational institutions naturally had their share of problems and administrators their quota of headaches.however.and ( )it was a non-dynamickind ofplanning which t 4 assumed an essentially static educational model that would retain its main featuresintact year i and year out.that is.and the all-powerfulexamination system. o but it is perhaps a f i picture of the mode. So w r the curriculum and methods of i instruction. ( ) it wasfragmentary i 2 i its coverage of the educational system. until the Second hs World War opened a new era of incredible change that was destined to touch every facet of lf on man's planet. n There were notable exceptionst theforegoingdescription. the aims of education and the value of its contributions to students and society were not subjected to annual scrutiny as part of planning. the typical kind of educational planning that went on i most places prior to the Second World War and for many generan tions before had these four key features:(1) it was short-range i outn look.education ran along f i l smoothly i its accustomed groove ary n under t i regimen of simple planning. i 19 .and to iblt e f c such gradual expansion and improvement as the circumstances fet seemed to warrant.and to crack the foundaie tions of h s old institutions.on the needs of the system. extending only to the next budget year (except when f c l t e aiiis had to be b i t or a major new programme added.

economic and demographic. By examining a few of the highlights of t i extraordinaryexperience hs w can gain a clearer understanding of why a new kind of planning e became imperative and what some of its major features would have t be. The consequence for n education was a new and formidable set oftasks.political and culcetfc tural changes that shook everything i sight. Each yielded a new crop of planning prob4 lm. and 3 () the Innovation Phase.Part Three W y a new kind of planning h became necessary During the twenty-five years from 1945 t 1970 educational systems o and their environments the world over were subjected to a barrage of s i n i i and technical. o il it wl help our perspective to look first at the developed world. il 1.and problems that far exceeded i size and complexity anything they had ever n experienced.In retrospect one has t marvel that they accomplished o al they did in the circumstances and somehow managed t avoid l o collapsing under the strain. Though our primary focus wl be on the developing nations. but their o tools of planning and management proved grossly inadequate i the n new situation.pressures. () the Rampant Expansion Phase.They did their heroic best t cope with these. In the industrialized nations Speaking very roughly. ( ) the n 2 Manpower Shortage Phase. es The battle-scarred nations of Europe emerged from the Second 20 .the industrializednations have passed through three educational phases from 1945 t 1970 and now find themselves o i a perplexing fourth phase: (1) the Reconstruction Phase.

longer view ahead.Massive programmes. The Soviet Union. o Meanwhile even i the United States.school financial needs and prospective local tax yields.In 1946 it inaugurated comprehensive investment planning for the whole economy. then in 1 51 incorporated nationwide capital planning for education into the 9 Second Five-Yearplan. balanced o with available resources.Other Western European countries tackled the planning of educational reconstruction i various ways befitting their n particular traditions and preferences.emergency training and the l k .Although the resulting local plans did not add up t a coherent national plan. o o ie by launching crash programmes of school construction. ufc that deeply affected many communities and imposed a heavy burden on severely damaged and strained economies. Most nations quickly set about trying t return education t something l k ‘normalcy’.and a morecarefulchecking oftheir economicfeasibilityand impacts.required broader and more complex programming and scheduling.many of them none the less reflected considerable ingenuity and technical competence i their orderly long-term n projections of local population and enrolments. where the idea of planning n was still anathema.while the newly ‘socialized’ countries of Eastern Europe turned t the Soviet Union for new planning models.teacher recruitment. schoollocations.teacher requirements. c which required each of the 1 6 local education 4 authorities i England and Wales t prepare a development plan for n o submission to the central Ministry of Education. local and state education authorities resorted t o more elaborate planning then ever before t handle the backlog of posto poned school constructionneeds.t meet the educational demands of o 21 .i keeping with its more cenn tralized system of education and government. To cite one example: even before the war had ended. France went about things differently.Though the planning methods that were improvised t meet this situation had o many shortcomings.they did do some good and they also conditioned educational authoritiesfor still greater planning problems yet to come. the United Kingdom-notwithstanding its decentralized system of education and its traditionallack of enthusiasm for planning i general-enacted the n Education A t of 1944. demographic shifts.W h y a new kind of planning became necessary World War with their educational systems seriously disrupted and facing a heavy backlog of educational needs. u l ence. ie I was soon evident that conventionalpre-wareducational planning t would not s f i e for these reconstruction tasks. faced with the most massive task of a l b i t upon her pre-warplanning experil.

But. and to prepare for the educational consequences of the war-induced‘babyboom’.arguing that education was thehuman right 22 . o They would have t plan o and t y to govern their student intakes and outputs t fit the pattern r o of manpower requirements c r i i d by the economists t be necessary etfe o for the economy’sgood health.but they would never return to pre-war ‘normalcy’.hence manpower bottlenecks began t loom as the o major obstacle to further growth.They preferred to fightfor bigger budgets on higher ground. More important.called upon t m e the larger and more sophistio et cated human resource requirements of expanding post-wareconomies. n The severely disrupted Western European economies recoveredtheir pre-war production levels with surprising speed and proceeded to climb t new heights.What is educational planning? returning veterans.it is worth noting. This was a distasteful price to pay. This led Western economists t become more manpower-mindedand o t look a education through new eyes.however. Al this.educatorsthemselveswould o have t become more manpower-minded. The manpower phase deserves a pause.and the great influenceit had on arousing fet the interest of economists i educational development.humanistic tradition. kls (This was not the case with developingnationswhen their turn came). education could make a more effective claim on national budgets.they would soon be h t by an explosive increase in i student numbers provoked in part by demographic factors but mainly by the post-warurge to ‘democratize’ educational opportunity on a grand scale. N o longer was education seen o t merely as a ‘non-productivesector of the economy which absorbed consumption expenditures’.Educational l ee systems w r soon physically restored. Wearing t i impressive new hs ‘investment’label. less because of its practical impact on European educational planning than because of its sidee f c s on developingnations. This quick recovery.however. But by the early 1950s these rebuilt economies had f l y absorbed the available supply of skilled ul human resources.was but a foretaste of things to come. Soon they would find themselves in the ‘manpower business’.for educators nurtured on the liberal.t justify the claim. was o mainly due t large and well-planned infusions of fresh capital o (through the Marshall Plan) into economic systems that were already endowed with sophisticated economic institutions and a ready supply of modern human s i l and know-how. was now viewed as an essential ‘investit ment expenditure’for economic growth.

Educators were frankly fearful that the ‘materialistically-minded’ economistswould subvert the traditional noble values and purposes of education.W h y a new kind of planning became necessary ofevery child. it did not include such c i i a factors as teacher supply.where nationwide educational planning f r al levels o l was closely integrated with over-all investment planning for the economy i five-yearcycles.They spokethrough differentjargonsand often used the same terms to mean different things.of whatever kind or level.i response to t i impulse. o most parents and theirchildrenedut cation was first and foremostthe best route to a better job and better l f . But as obviously important as manpower needs w r finally conee ceded to be. it was limited to the planning OF physical n f c l t e .The power of t i human impulse was something that every politiie hs cian understood and none could afford to ignore.A times the interchangebetween these new a l e resembled t lis a dialogue of the deaf.but what parents instinctively put first was their own children’s needs. aif t It must be added that i most of the developed nations of the west n -France being the chief exception--new forms of educational planning played a minor role at best i this extraordinary expansion. not a manpower s a i t c ttsi.I education also helped the economy so much the better. the educatorsinsisted. but the increased popular demand atr) which persistently outpaced the capacity of educational systems to s t s y i. This other force was the explosive increasein popular demand for education.they paled before another force that soon began to dominate the education sceneand give sleeplessnightsto authoritiesthroughout Europe and North America. whatever his ideology. Its t main propellant was not demography or the needs of the economy (though both these were f c o s . Thus from the mid-1950sonward.which l d to the Rampant e Expansion Phase.Regardlessofwhat educatorsmight say aboutthenobleand nonmaterialistic aims ofeducation.Above a l l.that their seeming differences began to evaporate and they discovered many mutual interests. hitting hardest a the secondary and university levels.It was onlylater.every child was first and foremostan individual. hence the more of it the better. Economistscouldtalka ltheywanted toaboutthenation’smanpower l needs.Education was a good thing.when they had educated each other. f but it should not be the economy’sslave.there n hs was a pell-mell expansion of enrolments throughout the developed world. aiiis rtcl 23 .And n even in France.

compared t the o o vast changes taking place i their student body. and needed educational reforms and innovations of various sorts.w r but the beginning ofa succesee sion of explosions that promised t persist i one form or another o n until educational institutions finally renewed themselves and m t the e public test of relevance.or whether continuing inertia wl invite bigger and more damaging explosions-remains to be seen.i order t achieve other needed innohs t n o vations there wl have t be some major innovations i educational il o n planning i s l . Lacking the means ae for c i i a self-scrunityand self-renewal. And t i they did. i the economy and n n society. ee This clinging to old forms created increasing maladjustments between educational systems and their economy. manpower requirements. the InnovationPhase. however.parents and other critics of traditionaleducation. What wl come of it-whether there wl i fact be il il n major innovationsand transformationst bring educationinto reasono able adjustment with its environment.they remained the captives rtcl of their own Clitist traditions and pedagogical habits a a t m when t ie they w r moving rapidly toward becoming mass educational systems.examinationsand all-with a v e t accommodating a larger iw o number and proportion ofthe youth population and thereby ‘democratizing’education.There w r such exceptional amendments t the old ee o system as the comprehensive high school i Sweden. they i were bound sooner or later to explode.most educational systems n tef had changed remarkably little by the l t 1960s. Like a boiling pot over a high flame with its ld clamped tight.This wl require new types of planning il concepts and tools which are only now taking shape.planning must now serve a strategy of educail tional change and adaptation. methods.and the addition n of non-classicalstreams t the French lycte.sympathetically supported by many teachers. il But t i much a least is clear. And yet. 24 .The events of 1967. These eruptions forced the educational systems of industrialized nations into yet a fourth post-warphase. Virtually everywhere the dominant thrust of strategy was t expand o pre-war educational models as rapidly as possible-curriculum.and i the state of knowledge i s l .Planning that merely serves a strategy of linear expantef sion wl no longer do.What is educational planning? recurrent costs. society and students.where they now are. For most hs of the industrialized world 1967 was the year of the Great Education Explosion-marked by violent student protests.

however. n and sharply increased participation rates i secondary and higher edun cation. The trouble was. with an educational strategy of linear expansion. A a series of Unesco conferences early in the 1960s education t ministers of Asia.The Unesco regional conferencesmade certain qualitativerecommendations as w l .and their educational systemsdespite heroic efforts to enlarge them-even less relevantand less adequate to their needs. for without such growth the desired long-runexpansion of education and other major social objectives would simply not be possible. that these nations were not equipped to do the kind of educational and manpower planning that the situation required. Thus it made sense to give i i i l priority nta to educating the most needed types ofmanpower for economicgrowth.The case for a ‘manpowerapproach’ was particularly strong i developing nations because their over-all n development was conspicuously handicapped by shortages of a l kinds l of specialized manpower.With n ttsis t i as their frame of reference. because the global supply of basic knowledge and experts for this 25 .the developing nations moved enthushs i s i a l into campaigns of rapid educational expansion.showed that the attainmentof these targets would require a large increase in the proportion of the GNP devoted t education plus a large expansionofaid from the outo side.W h y a n e w kind of planning became necessary 2. Africa and Latin America set ambitious regional targets for educational expansion i their respective regions to be n achieved by 1980 (1975 in the case of Latin America). These targets were widely adopted by individual nations. They called f r 1 0 per o 0 cent participation i primary education by the end ofthe target period. atcly It was clear even to the most ardent believers in laissez-faire that they would have to plan their way carefully to make the best use of their acutely scarce resources. which. Starting in the 1950s the developing nations responded similarly t o their new circumstances.In the developing nations Much of what was said above applies with even greater force t o developing nations during the 1950s and 1960s. Nor was the rest of the world equipped to help them much. even though tending on the optimistic side.Their educationalneeds were even larger and more urgent.but it was clear t al that the prime measuring el o l rod of future progress-and the main basis for comparing nationswould be increasesi enrolments a i t c to reach to the targets. Rough estimates of costs and revenues were made.

nor n n anyone who was wl equipped to wie one.etc.) were not carefully projected. el rt But action could not wait for knowledge and s i l t catch up.the ILO and various bilateral aid agencies and foundations did their best t o recruit the most qualified advisers they could find t fill the mounting o requests of developing nations for help on planning. Wasteful imbalances within the educational system Typically. Though they varied i form and intensity from place t place.even a any one level the t necessary flows of components (teachers. While most of these experts succeeded i making valuable contributions of one type n or another. In one familiar type-case. there were teachers and pupils but no classrooms. eventual result was that the new pupils turned The up i new classrooms only to find themselves with no teacher or textn books. secondary and higher education were not co-ordinated. scheduled and programmed.the others w r ee seriously handicapped.textbooks. several c i i a problems began t appear. t Very soon.most n o existed.There was no o good textbook on the subject i any language i the early 1960s.buildings. at And up they went.i one guise or another. equipment. The inevitable result was a series of self-defeatingdisparities.a remarkable speed. n a. Sometimes the reverse happened. Moreover. school constructionreceived an excessive priority while the expansion of teacher training and textbook supplies was short-changed.What is educational planning? kind of planning was acutely scarce. It is instructive t look b i f y a some of these problems for o rel t what they can tell us about the concrete tasks which educationalplanning must now cope with.almost everywhere. however. So kls o educational leaders i the developing world moved bravely ahead t n o push their enrolments upward toward the targets as f s as possible. Almost invariably there w r not enough ee books.Unesco. their assistance t educational planning was perforce o largely limited t what they could improvise on the job. rtcl o which by the end of the 1 6 s had multiplied into a full-blownedu90 cational crisis that gripped virtually every developing nation i the n world. With any one important component missing. In another type-caseresources w r poured into university expanee sion while secondary education lagged behind. To their credit. The result was that new university places stood idle for lack of enough qualified candidates 26 .compaigns for expanding primary.

Costs rising faster than reoeizues Though this enormous popular demand was an effective political pressure for boosting education budgets.the budgets could not possibly keep pace with the rising costs and studentnumbers. n 27 .Where they had been tested theircosts had typically been under-estimated and prospective income over-estimated. b.t i looked good i theory but was very hs n hard t do i practice. This is what happened to popular demand for education.O n e was t cut back the i i i l taro nta gets.and the very expansion of education f r d an increase i popular expectations and ie n educational demand that fed on i s l and soon got out of hand.they restesblt ed on blind faith that somehow the necessary means for achieving them would arrive. D e m a n d far in excess oj capacity The setting of bold targets.The third escape route was to spread available o n resources thinner over more and more students. raising educational efficiency. Thus the targets proved economically unrealistic. but it seemed a dubious kind of progress when ie one delved behind the grossenrolment s a i t c and saw the shockingly ttsis high dropout and repeater rates.secondary enrolments w r r ee sharply expanded and universities were soon overwhelmed by far more entrants than they could cope with. there were three possible escapes.In some countries the economic f a i i i y ofthe targets had never been tested.conversely.the making of large promises.somettsis t m s even above it.but a the expense of t quality and effectiveness.but t i was p l t c l y d f i u t A second was to cut costs by hs oiial ifcl.This was the main route taken.It permitted the s a i t c of enrolmentsto keep rising along the target path.it can also be an unnerving sight for school authorities who must turn a large number of them away. tef The widening gap between educational demand and capacity was compoundedby a youthpopulation explosionwhich turned the original expansion targets into moving targets.coming too soon. As the real facts became evident and the financial squeeze came on. While children clamouring to go to school is a joyous sight in any land. c.W h y a new kind of planning became necessary from secondary schools. O .There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. or v s t d over-crowded classrooms iie and observed what was going on there i the name of education.

A l a t three other t es kinds of shortage plagued educational development i the 1960s: n ( ) the limited administrative a i i i s of educational systems to plan a blte and t transform plans and money into desired results.in one country after another. ifclis e Not enough jobsfor the educated .fine new f c l t e they could not staff.What is educational planning? d.are clear.the United Arab Republic.i retron spect.and i n several Latin American nations that had made an e r i r start. iey A first the job prospects were very good. These administrative. equipment they could not use.Some systemsfound themselvesi theawkwardposin tion of having large construction credits they could not spend. it seemed inconceivable that they would find themselves a decade l t r with more educated ae people than their economy seemed able t use.most l k l with the government. to replace expatriates.But by ale the l t 1960s the unthinkable was even beginning to happen i some ae n of the most newly independent African nations. however.for most students the aim was clearly t win a good job and o a good standing in the community. and () the limited capacity of local construction c industries. the newly independent t nations were desperately short of educated manpower of al sorts to l s a f their expanding government services. human and physical bottle-necksbecame the ultimate determinants of how fast and i what directions an educan tional system could develop and how much financial help it could profitably absorb.Long delays in achieving fr agreements and then actual deliveries on im foreign aid projects exacerbated these d f i u t e . e The phenomenon of the educated unemployed appeared first i such n countries as India. Whatever educationalphilosophers may have thought were the aims of education. was not only the bottleneck.( ) the long o b t m required to recruit and develop competent s a f for new schools ie tfs and universities.the Philippines. For many this meant escaping with an educational passport from the village to the bright lights of the city.there to seek a job. Non-financialbottlenecks Money.The reasons. f e being o Atr starved of formal education for centuries. 28 . aiiis attractiveand urgently needed schemesthey could not implement. o Yt this is precisely what happened.and tf t get on with the mammoth tasks of nation-building.

This was a painful process. the vacant government posts by now had been largely Uled by the best qualified people available a the t m . O n the supply side. Thus the supply curve shot up fast.relatively large numbers of graduates began t come on t the o o market. small i relation t the government as an n o employer of educated manpower. The one bright spot i al t i was that the educationalsystem itself.was creating new jobs only slowly. Simultaneously. a smalland In simple economy it does not take a very large s i t i the numbers to hf n produce a major change i the employment market balance-and a n traumatic shock for many students and their families. aiiis But the main thrust of the pendulum was from manpower shortages t manpower surpluses.could now begin to hire better qualified people as teachers. Selective manpower shortagescontinued t e i t i some specialized o xs n categories. after a few years of educational ‘production lag’. O n the demand side. I was tempting for some observerst leap to the simplistic conclut o sion that education had been over-expandedand therefore should now be throttled back to match the economy’sjob-creatingpotential. sometimes prodded by new minimum wage laws.and what had been a seller’s market for educational manpower turned into a buyers’market.because teaching was a l s resort on at their list ofjob preferences. Not only o were their talents lost t their own nation when they failed t return. the more so as it turned toward labour-saving methods and equipment.even t ie though t e r qualificationsoften fell wl below the o f c a norms. But a deeper look suggested that the r a solution lay mainly within the el 29 .W h y a new kind of planning became necessary The employment market pendulum had swung sooner and more abruptlythan eventhe manpower expertshad anticipated. Thus the demand fell sharply.prompted i part by the diminishing job prospects back n home as seen by students who had gone abroad t study. o o but so w r the precious resources that had been invested i their ee n earlier education. The private sector. though many came grudgingly. This raised serious new issues of policy and o required a wholesale reappraisaland adjustment of earlier assumptions and expectations by government and individuals alike. One particularly painful aspect was the accelerated ‘brain drain’ that set in.many who had gone abroad t study were o now returning with degrees. n l hs as a buyer.and hi el fiil below those of the newly educated who would later come on t the o market.especially where no local training f c l t e were available.

o o But it was doubtfuli even a more ‘modern’ ofeducation designed f type t fit young people for a modern job and c t life was the right eduo iy cation for the great majority of youngsters who w r destined t live ee o out their lives i rural areas.however. Instead of conditioning them for leadern ship i rural and agricultural development.The most astute manpower and educationalplanners pointed out that the prime goal of economic development should not be simply t raise the s a i t c of GNP but o ttsis t raise the level of employment and improve the distribution of o income. Another was the tragedy of exhorbitant drop-out rates.which was indispensable n t over-allnational development.the economy was not creating as many jobs as it should. Better alternatives were far from clear. But the other face of the problem was that many students were receivingthe wrong sort of education for the world of work they would live in. More than a f w critics had openly castie gated the still dominant ‘imported 19th-centuryeducation’ as being ill-suitedt the needs of poor nations trying t modernize themselves.and even where clear o i they w r exceedingly d f i u t time-consuming expensivet adopt.however. True.however. ee ifcl.to know what was wrong with an outt moded and misplaced curriculum. often with rewarding results.f l helpless to change i.were not too evident and would certainly be d f i u t a best.knowing f l n ul wl the wastes involved. I needed re-structuringand adjusting so as t make t o better use of available educated manpower. The wrong kind of education Educators could not divest themselves of al responsibility for t i l hs employmentproblem. But elsewhere the system ground on day after day i its old rut. el et t Irrelevanteducation was one ofthe heavy prices paid for the strategy of linear expansion and for the impressively mounting enrolment stati t c . The practical ways of pursuing this high employmentpolicy.What is educational planning? economy itself. ifcl t f. and o Here and there. I was one thing.it would tend t alienate them from o o their rural surroundings. Therefore the concern of manpower planners should not be limited t breaking human resource bottlenecks t economic growth . the sis 30 . staunch efforts were made t replace the old curo riculum and teaching methods with something more relevant. o o it should be with maximizing the number of jobs consistent with a reasonable rate of growth.but quite anotherthing t know how o t fx it.while many of its leaders and teachers.

but no amount of planning could have drastically altered the basic constraints. our purpose here is neither t praise nor criticize o the past but to discover its lessonsfor the future. But n ee better planning. compulsions and aspirations that primarily dictated the course of events.had it been available.a serious handicap to national development. 31 .and millions of individual heartaches. Be that as it may.I history could be replayed with o f al the advantages of hindsight.In brief. o The same can be said for the industrialized nations.W h y a new kind of planning became necessary hundreds of thousands of youngsterswho went to school but lf too et soon t learn even to read.I could have helped especially by enabt ling policy-makersand al others concernedto see theseemerging probl lems sooner and i clearer perspective. undoubtedly many things could be l done somewhat better.could undoubtedly have helped things to go somewhatbetter.The astonishingthing is not that so much went badly el but that so much more went w l .wl o t el adapted tothe needs of its environment and e f c e t i its use of fiin n resources. n In retrospect.could not be built i a day-or even a single decade.Their basic causes were deeply rooted i the landscape and the problems w r bound to arise. But what was there t do about i ? A first-rateeducational system.In trying to discover these lessons we should guard against the naive notion that better planning-the very best that one can imagine-would have eliminated the problems we have just reviewed. o The s x problems just described conspired to cause a vast waste of i precious economic resources and human potential.good eduesblt cational planning might have given them clearer eyes t see wt and o ih a better informedjudgement with which t face decisions. to identify more clearly the n various options available for dealing with them. Better planning would surely have helped.the greater inherent strengths of their educational systems and their considerably longer experience-could hardly be said to excel the record of the developing nations.whose educational record i t i period-considering their far greater human and n hs material resources.The net balance of the recordthough it cannot be measured with precision and many ofthe benefits have yet to be f l y reaped-certainly appears t be heavily on the ul o positive side. and to assess the relative merits and f a i i i y of these alternatives.w cannot seriously fault the valiant efforts made t e o develop education i the 1950s and 1 6 s by developing nations and n 90 by those who sought t help them.

as a quick glance at the facts wl show.What is educational planning? The impression should not be left. however. il 32 . that while al these l ee troubles w r boiling up nothing was being done to create and apply more effective kinds of educational planning. A great deal was being done.

it cannot go its own way. I id f isolated in a back room it becomes a purely academic exercise whose chiefe f c is to frustrate those involved. Moreover. ae First.or even of elementary school teachers -it is necessary to plan years ahead. educational planning should be comnprr1zensii. elte Fourth. Second.educational planning should be integrated with the plans or broader economicand socialdevelopment. fet 33 . the planning process must be closely t e to the processes of decision-making and operations.Ifeducation is to contribute most e f c i e y t individual and national development.and t make fetvl o o the best use of scarce resources. To be effective.Part Four Recent progress i theory and methodology n Discussions among educational leaders and economists i the early n 1 6 s produced easy agreement on five propositions which formed a 90 general framework for l t r explorations.e. for example. a middle-range(four t n er) o five years) and a long-range perspective(ten to fifteeny a s . Obviously er) its vision wl grow less precise the farther ahead it looks.educationalplanning should take a longer range view.it should t y t r o extend its vision t importanttypes of non-fonnal education and traino ing to ensure their effective integration with formal education and with the priority needs and goals of society.I should t embrace the whole educational system i a single vision to ensure the n harmonious evolution of its various parts. ignoring the r a i i s of the world around it. Third. But considil ering the long ‘lead time’required to increase educational capacity and to a t r educational output-to enlarge. educational planning should be an integral part o educaf tional management. the prole duction of doctors or engineers. It should i fact have a short-range(one or two y a s .

What is educational planning? Ffih.The questions(appliedt a specifiedt m period) o ie are essentially these: 1. each institution.educational effectiveness. theirrelative costs. sacrifices be distributed as between the direct recipients ofeducation and society a large. questions which often get answered by default without ever being explicitly asked. The key planning questions As useful as they w r as a starting point.What are the best of the alternativepossible ways ofpursuing these various objectives and functions? (This involves a consideration of alternative educationaltechnologies.t m requireie ments. This required three sorts of action: (I) the development of specific concepts and methodologies.etc.i terms not only of financialresources o iis n but real resources? What is the maximum of resources that education can effectively absorb in the given time period ? 4 W h o should pay? How should the burden of educational costs and .Only thuscan it help to make education more relevant.each grade. (and this proposition was slower t become evident) eduo cational planning must be concerned with the yualitatizre aspects of educationaldevelopment. and among different groups i society? How t n wl adapted is the present public f s a structure. 2 thetrainingofpeople to apply () them.the above propositions did ee not really address the central planning questions which every nation faces.these five propositions soon enjoyed universal endorsement in principle.each course. 3.notmerely with quantitativeexpansion. and () the adaptation of organizational and administrative 3 arrangements t enable planning t work. practical feasibility. In the present section we o o wl deal with the first of these.t attaining a socially desirable distribution of the burden and at the same t m a sufficient flow of necessary ie income to education? 34 . f i i n and effective.but the problem was t get them o obeyed.each c a s ? ls) 2. leaving the other two for the next il section. What should be the priority objectives and functions of the educational system and of each of its sub-systems(including each level. efcet Like the Ten Commandments. 1.How much of the nation’s ( r community’s) resources should be o devoted t education at the expense of other things? What appear o t be the lmt offeasibility.and other sources el icl o of educational revenue.

it commands his prime o attention and loyalty.feeling l k t ie Scrooge and the enemy of children.H may be equally idealistic and e may equallylovechildrenand valueeducation. general education.Hs record of spending right up to the budget ceiling iey i i seldom matched in other sectors. most of the key planning questions n hs posed above seem highly theoretical and impractical. L t e somebody else worry about where the money should come from. s T o a man i t i situation.are l k l to approach and answer these questions in quite iey different ways. A this point the economist is at a tactical disadvantage. well as sociologists.H is their champion.free meals.types and components ofthe system ( .reflecting differences i their background. H e believes devoutly that every young person shouldget al the education he can use.win a budget or m e a payroll. higher educaeg tion . technical U.primary U.Moreover they cover too broad an area. secondary21. Educatorsand economists.So a budget t m he asks for al he thinks he can effect ie l t v l use. as he sees it his resposibility is t figure how o much money is needed for education and how to spend it well.plus something extra.scholarships.for he knows he wl get less than he iey il asks for.let those who iiiy o would deprive the nation’syouth stand up and be counted. but e t him education is clearly Number One. .pragmatist and politician. he is lessapragmatist but and politician and more a conceptualizer and analyst than the educational administrator.H o w should the t t l resources available to education (whatever oa the amount may be) be allocated among different levels.H is accustomed t viewing the economy et e o as a whole and t seeking an optimum balance among its sectors i o n 35 . textbooks.politicansand philoas sophers.outlook and n styles of thinking. teachers’ salaries U.but he knows t i is not feasible l hs immediately.e c ) ? t.H then fightshard to get al he can and finally ends up with e l a compromise budget which he proceeds to spend as fully and effect v l as possible.w should pause n at e to note how educational administratorsand economists were inclined to think about these matters.Anyone who withholds the necessary funds assumes responil e s b l t f r penalizing their future. The good educational administratoris a hybrid of idealist.for he knows al too well how for l many children there are waiting t be educated and roughly what this o wl cost. building and equipment U. H e does not take ‘no’ an answer easily.Recent progress i theory and methodology n 5. H e has never had to run a school system. H appreciates other important social needs.Since t i fact bears heavily on how different groups hs did approach educationalplanning i the l s decade.

Viewed i t i perspective. by straight p l t c l jousting and trading.the economist.while the economist wants t o see education do wl he does not believe it can o should have an el r unlimited priority or a blank cheque relative to everything else (and t him this is what the educational administrator seems to be asking o fr. One is the practical d f i u t of measuring costs and benefits. This problem of course can be solved.to get maxim u m output (the ‘efficiencyproblem’). Thus. But even a priority must have its l m t .no single iis sector. particularly benefits that ifcly wl onlybe realized i thedistantfuture.L whole. this is the only sensible meant ing of a priority. There are.t theeconomist.with those having the strongestp l t c l oiia oiia muscles coming off best. and often is. be permitted to take al the pie it w s e .who identifies with the largernational interest or with the larger interests of the educational system as . H does not expect such a solution to displace the p l t c l e oiia process. but he hopes it wl help the political process to yield someil what more rational answers.(Bywhich t m theeconomist’s il n ie 36 . o how best to use these resources.What is educational planning’? the face of over-allresourcelmt. But the distribution of political muscles does not necessarily coincide with the best distribution of resources i the n over-allnational interest.where the top administrator himself must be the arbiter.The same applies to allocation of resources within the educational system. o the most c i i a problem for policy-makingis how to strike the right rtcl balance among competing uses for the same limited resources.it is obvious that education can only get n hs more a the expense of something else.of course. iis Thus. is constantlylooking for a more rational solution to this allocation problem. o) The economist i preoccupied with two central problems:f r t how s is.once they are allocated. best to divide the limited economic pie among various competing uses t get the best over-allresults (the ‘allocationproblem’): second. can l ihs irrespectiveofthe sacrificecoststo otherthings.Thus. educationincluded. The best theoretical solution to the ‘allocationproblem’ which the economists have come up with so far is t use the Gross National o Product as the central criterion and then apply a ‘cost-benefit’e t to ts each of various alternativeallocation possibilities to discover which of them yieldsthe highest ratio of benefits t costs and hence wl contribo il ute most to over-alleconomic output.two admitted weaknesses i this cost-benefit n approach. notwithstanding its persuasive logic.

If this is the case. It is most commonly used to mean the aggregate ‘popular’ demand for education.the ‘manpower approach’and the ‘cost-benefit approach’(more accurately. thoughgood as far as it goes.In thejargon n of the trade they are called the ‘socialdemand approach’.which are not directly n economic terms. e t 2.we can perhaps appreciate better o iw the three different ‘approaches’to educational planning that were advocated by competing schools ofthought i the 1960s. But there may also be other kinds of benefit. of course.is too narrow-visioned and could seriously mislead policy-makersinto making the wrong allocations. the sum total of individual demands for education a a given place and t m under prevailing cultural.Recent progress in theory and methodology e r i r estimatesmay be very wide ofthe mark and the policy decisions ale based on them irreversible. This i one o s reason why educational planning as it evolved i the 1 5 s and 1 6 s n 90 90 kept its focuson the broad outer parametersof the educational system and studiously ignored what was going on inside. but which are neverthelessvery important t indivio duals and the nation. L t us take a look a them.including the f l e development and equalization ulr of educational opportunities. ‘Socialdemand’is an ambiguousand mischievous t r (rarely used em by educators) which can be defined in several quite different ways.The ‘social demand’ approach This approach comes most naturally to the educator and is actually more a description of what he normally does than a theoretical formulation of how he should approach planning.the ‘rate-of-return approach’). Having i mind these contrasting ways in which educators and econ nomists tend t v e the same scene.Certainly economic output and growth are central to the attaiment of other major social goals.then the economist’s costbenefit calculation.to get very farinto this would quickly involve economistsi some very sticky and contentious pedagogical n issues which most of them have been anxious t avoid.are much reduced when the cost-benefitapproach is applied to a particular project rather than to a whole broad sector. As forthe ‘efficiencyproblem’.political and ecot ie 37 .) The other weakness concernsthe criterion i s l and the narrow definition of ‘benefits’ tef which it implies. particularly i the case of education. The dangers and penalties of such errors.that is.

forgone. To obtain even a good approximate measure of volain) untary demand would virtually require a house-to-house canvass i n most cases. e c ) but the ‘opportunitycosts’ of income t. But the culture itself.is where compulsory education e i t together with good demographic data on the relevant age xss group (the case i most industrialized countries but not i most develn n oping n t o s . is undoubtedly the most influential factor of al i determining the social demand l n for education. The first step was t collect the o best available estimates of how many children by age levels there were i each country of the region and how many of them were already n 38 .The exception.What is educational planning? nomic circumstances. For example. governments can use propaganda t stimulate the private (voluntary) o demand for education.When t i haphs pens the demand suddenly grows larger and is basically determined by demography. t Measuring social demand is almost always extremely d f i u t and ifcl often impossible. by compensating students or their n parents for the income and work forgone). it can arbitrarily boost social demand by requiring school attendance and.of course.beyond the age ofcompulsion. making eduby cation free (even. Within lmt.voluntary demand.The method employed was essentially very simple.though as a practical matter it is far easier t stimulate an o increase than to reverse the process. of work not done on the family farm while the student is attending school.it is no longer a private. There is good evidence of a demand-supply gap when educational authorities and political leaders receive mounting complaints from i a e parents whose children cannot get into rt school. One concerns the imposo ition by government of compulsory school attendance. if a government can afford to.public authorities can influence the s z of social iis ie demand. i the extreme. If there are fewer classrooms and places than there are serious candidates to occupy them. The Unesco regional targets referred t earlier are a f i l good o ary illustration of the social demand approach. not o i only the cash costs (fees.The second point is that voluntary demand may be considerably influenced by what the costs of education are t the student and h s parents.provided people can pay for i. Short of these measures. T w o important points need t be added. one can say that social demand exceeds supply. the climate of attitudes and convictions about what education can do for people.though it was no easy matter t get the basic o facts and estimates for applying it.

The resulting targets w r subject ee to criticism on many grounds.to determine absolute enrolment targets.The third step was t choosesome participationrate targets o for 1980 and certain interveningyears and apply them to the population projections.etc. ie n i stimulating social demand as wl) n el. Another example of the social demand approach is what happens in France with regard to university admission.The rule i France is n that any student who passes the baccalauriat a the end of the lycek t (secondary school) can automatically enter the university. o n Three main criticisms are made of the social demand approach.This was ee certainly one importantcausalfactor i the ‘EventsofMay’that shook n French universities t their foundations i 1968).Here some rather optimi t c assumptions were made about the behaviour of unit costs. The main f a i i i y measurement that was o esblt attempted concerned the availabilityoffunds. how much foreign aid could be obtained.I was taken for granted ary t that the economy could use al who got an education and that i l n general the greatly expanded educationaloutlayswould addimportantly t economic growth. In actuality some relati e y simple assumptionswere made i the absenceof any better ones.they w r about as good ee as circumstances permitted and they undoubtedly were quite effective at the t m i stimulating higher educational budgets (and. This l s was the trickiest step of a l because logically it required at l. t up to 1980. vl n One importantassumption was that the populardemand for education would continue t outrun the supply. This established n the current participation rates. The skyrocketing of French university enrolments since the early 1950s has provided clear evidence of a sharply rising social demand for higher education.(It has also been a major source of headaches f r French o educational planners and university administrators.econsi omic growth rates and foreign aid.Rccent progress in theory and methodology enrolled i primary.Another was that the unit costs o of education would remain f i l constant.what the economy could afford.who had no good way t predict very closely how f s the social demand would rise o at and how many students would turn up each autumn.what it would cost.Usually more turned up than w r expected and than there was room for.indirectly.secondary and higher education. The next step was t take the best o availableprojections of the future youth population a each age level. how much educated manpower each national economy would need and how many jobs it could actually provide. a compositejudgement of many f a i i i y factors:how much educaesblt tion the people would really want. 39 .Nevertheless.

What is educational planning? particularly by economists: () it ignores the larger national problem 1 ofresourceallocation and implicitlyassumes that no matter how many resources go t education this is their best use for national development o as a whole.to underestimate costs.provided the pattern and quality of educational output is geared to the economy’s manpower needs. It had nothing t say o about primary education (which was not considered t be ‘work-cono nected’) though by implication it suggested curbing the expansion of primary education until the nation got richer. Economic growth.many economists preferred the ‘manpowerapproach’ t educational planning. Thus the development of human resources through the educational system is an important pre-requisitefor economic growth and a good investment of scarce resources.thereby reducing quality and effectiveness to the point where education becomes a dubious investment. The ‘manpower’ approach As noted earlier. Accepting this l n of reasoning. While the broad logic of the manpower approach was hard t argue o with. The advocates readily conceded that education had other important purposes besides producing manpower. n mary school participation rate a about 50 per cent i order t give t n o temporary priority t higher levels of education directly tied t ecoo o nomic manpower needs.() it ignoresthe character and pattern ofmanpower needed 2 by the economy and can readily result i producing too many of some n types and not enough of others.the government of Tanzania. the educational planners only limited guidance. The argument i its favour ran roughly as o n follows: Economic growth is the mainspring of a nation’s over-all development and thus should be the prime considerationi allocating n its scarce resources. 3. but this was vague guidance and poor comfort. and () it tends t over-stimulate 3 o popular demand.its practical application revealed a number of flaws.F r t it gave is.for ie example. however.and to lead t a thin spreado ing of resources over too many students. Most manpower studies 40 . requires not only physical resources and f c l t e but also human resources t organize aiiis o and use them.courageously decided i the early 1960s to stabilize its pri-. They disposed of the issue by inviting educational planners t weigh these ‘other’ o objectives along with manpower considerations. but they saw no necessary conflict.

g.The more refined the categories( . The actual work of a building elte es trades worker or agricultural specialist or health o f c r in Africa or fie Asia.technological and other uncertainties involved.semi-skilledand unskilled workers i the c t e and the vast n iis majority of workers who lived i rural areas.I could also give hs ttsia t educators useful guidance on how. But. as wl as the n n el assumed educational qualifications correspondingt each category of o job. This i fact was verv useful for educational planners to know. one or two years) the fuzzier ie o the estimates became and the l s trustworthy.were usually borrowed from industrializedeconomies and did not fit the r a i i s of l s developed ones. for example. at the same t m .f v t ten years U.broken into fine categories. eg the desirable ratio of engineers to technicians.and t c l for a o al different s r of preparation.roughly.Recent progress in theory and methodology confinedtheirattention t ‘highlevel’manpowerneeded by the ‘modern o sector’(that is. . eg ‘electricalengineers’ratherthan ‘engineersofal types’)and thelongerl range the forecast(e.with a large f s f l of s l . namely. n Second.they learned t extract useful itu at ie o guidance from manpower studies.and various amountsofpost-secondarytraining. mostly urban employment). but it n was a far cry from detailed manpower requirements.doctors to nurses) used i most manpower studies i developing countries.from that of someonewearing the same ot label in England.even though this guidance fl far el short of what the planners needed. Thus planners were given no useful clues about the educational requirements of the people who would constitute the vast majority of the nation’s future labour force. 4 1 . of A third difficulty was the impossibility of making reliable forecasts of manpower requirements far enough ahead t be of real value t o o educational planning.the employment classifications and manpower ratios ( . es The manpower approach could usefully c l attention t extreme al o gaps and imbalancesi education’soutput pattern thatneeded remedy. n but t i hardly required elaborate s a i t c l studies. A e t educationalplanners who understood the foregoinglimitations lr soon learned to take impressives a i t c ltables oflong-termestimates ttsia of manpower requirements.Educational plans based on such faulty assumptions could result in the mis-preparationand o over-preparation many studentsforthejobsthey were meant t fill.the educational qualifications ofthe labourforceoughtt evolvei thefuture-what therelative o n proportions should be of people wt a primary education or less. was likely to be quite different. .France or the United States. ih secondary education.because of the myriad economic.

perhaps the economy would use more of them. eiis as described earlier. Education could only l hs s t s y the economy’s manpower needs and stimulate the creation of aif more jobs i it was the right kind of education.Perhapsthe econo omy should also respond t education.no less than educational strategy. o 42 . Some also speculated that a moderate excess of educational output over estimated manpower requirements might actually stimulate the economy to faster growth.but this was beginning t look as over-simplifiedas educao tion’s goal of boosting enrolment s a i t c .i it produced ‘develf f opment-minded’ people with the appropriate knowledge. This meant that economic planning and economic development policy.w r i need of reconsideraee n tion.This prompted such original pioneers of the manpower approachas ProfessorFrederick Harbison t counsel their overo enthusiastic disciples (by now engaged i what Harbison called ‘statn i t c l pyrotechnics’)t abandon this much too narrow v e i favour sia o iw n of a wider-angled‘employmentapproach’.W h a t i educational planning? s The inadequacies of t i earlier manpower approach assumed gihs gantic proportions when eventually the employmentmarket pendulum began swinging hard from manpower d f c t to manpower surpluses. the old assumption was called into question.that the economy independently created the manpower needs while education passively responded t them.What good was a rising ttsis GNP i it was accompanied by growing masses of unemployed and f under-employedand if its distribution amongthe citizenswas extremely lopsided ? So the manpower planners began pressing the v e that creating iw new jobs and high employment should be given parity with raising the GNP as a prime objective of economic policy. A good deal of the eduo cation going on did not appear t fit these specifications. But there was one great ‘if‘ about al t i .In short.Until then (the l t 1 6 s the cardinal objective and criterion o ae 90) f success of economic planning had been t raise the GNP as fast as o possible.and education could do some o job-creatingon its own.Ifgood potential workers were available. s i l and kls attitudes t promote national development.and perhaps some would take the initiative t create their own jobs i their education had struck a spark of motivao f tion and entrepreneurship.

T o be sure.The ‘rate-of-return’ approach Yt anothergroup of economists. But the practical d f i u t e of actually measuring these costs and ifclis benefits were even more formidable than those encountered by the socialdemand and manpower techniques.some economists and engineers had made progress on similar calculationsapplying t o such things as steel mls irrigation dams and f r i i e plants.disagreed es l with t i general point. The noise from the economists was out of al proportion to l 43 . If they were even aware that it was being waged (which many w r not).N o one.i effect. etlzr measuring the l k l costs and benefits of major sub-divisionsof an iey educational system was far more complicated. Educators largely stayed out of this particular battle.or with the allocation of the education system’stotalresourcesamong its various sub-sectors.Their instinct o was right. Indeed. They said. But il. weighs the cost of e each and the correspondingsatisfaction or u i i y he f e s it wl bring tlt el il him. and then chooses those particular options within h s means that i promise the highest ratio of benefits to costs.however.coming out of the neo-classical e tradition of economists. The ‘cost-benefit’ principle is what a rational individual roughly applies when deciding how best t spend his money when h s desires o i exceed his means.lost no t m i f r n criticisms a these ie n i i g t numbers with the vigour and delight that economistsreserve for intratribal feuds. o n that this approach was about as guilty as the social demand approach ofignoringthe over-all‘allocationproblem’and the key test ofbenefits versus costs.took hard issue with the manpower approach on grounds additional t those already mentioned. These economists argued that economic and educational planners should follow this same s y e of logic when dealing with the allocatl tion of a nation’s total resources among different major sectors. n Other economists. H examines his alternatives.Undaunted. ee they either failed to understand what the shooting was about or regarded the matter as so academic as t be innocuous.thc advocates of what came t be called the ‘rate-of-return’ o approach made a heroic effort and emerged with some precise-lookingnumbers i sevn eral studies i different countries.a least a this early experimental stage of rate-of-return t t studies.Recent progress iii theory and methodology 4.one can hardly be a good planner or hs decision-makeri he does not think intuitively i these cost-benefit f n terms. l a t of al other economists.

The usual method is t calculate the differential in a person’s o life-timeearningsthatwl resultfrom an added incrementofeducation. This i a very dubious il n s assumption. But these future income differentials.W h a t is educational planning? the immediaterelevance of these studiest policy decisions. One of rtc o the underlying (and doubtful) assumptions behind this method of calculating social benefits is that differentials in wage and salary rates are a f i l accurate reflection of the relative economic productivity ary ofdifferentpeople. was always the r s that some innocent top decision-makermight get ik hold ofthe rate-of-return figures. This a least was t the fear of c i i s but i fairness it should be said that the authors of rtc. n these studies would probably themselves have been alarmed i they f had thought that unsophisticated use would be made of their very tenuous s a i t c l conclusions.A good many other heroic assumptionsare required to complete the arithmetic and to reach a rate-of-return figure. ttsia It would take too long here t explain in detail the numerousweako nesses which have been charged t the rate-of-returnapproach. For o one thing. This is a fair-sized exclusion. These n s weaknesses on the cost side. The same private earnings (before taxes) are also used as a proxy measure of social benefits.however.the basic cost data are flimsy and c i i stake particular issue rtc with including as a cost the estimated income forgone by students. superior intelligence.which can be somewhatlessenedwith improved data but never eliminated. . The more serious weaknesses. especially i countries where heavy unemployment i endemic. hs eg family background and connections).take them t be s i n i i a l revealed o cetfcly truth and make some horribly mistaken decisions.the implicit assumption being that they wl remain constant i the future. 4 4 .correlatedwt educational differentials. motivation. S i l there o tl.which some c i i s consider t be a rather big leap. The educational planner is l f wondering what extra allowance he should make et for these excluded benefits.concern the calculation of future benefits.are susceptibleof correction as better data become available. The authors make clear that their method measures only the direct economic benefits and takes no account of indirect economic benefits and non-economic ones.are computed on the ih basis of past and present differentials. il o discounted by an arbitrary percentage t allow for the non-educational causes of t i extra income ( . These extra private earnings (after taxes) resulting from extra education are used as the measure of private benefits.

a few of these rate-of-return studies.They are essentially instruments for macro-planning. as such can be very useful.provides an adequate basis by itselffor educationalplanning. A its methodologies o s and basic data improve it may provide more solid guidance. The towering weakness of al three is that o ild l they implicitly take the existing educational system for granted and leave it untouched except for its scale.have reached the n same conclusion-that the economic yield on primary education i n those countries is considerablyhigher than the yield on university education. This should not be taken as a natural law.it may n simply reflect certain biases i the data and methodology.l k the social demand ie and manpower approaches.t make a whole constellation of tenuous assumptions n o about the economic future. the rate-of-returnapproach. would leave l important gaps t be f l e . But none of these approaches.has a decided relevance and u i i y foredutlt cational planning. o Ifal the other weaknesses could somehow be overcome.Recerit progress in theory and mcthodology Curiously enough. done independently i different developing countries.the l s thing a developing nation wants t do is at o t repeat i.however. T o sum up. therewould l still remain the fact that the rate-of-return approach tells the planners and decision-makersonly half what they need t know.it is now clear.however.Given the paucity of good data to work with and the need.or even necessarily as the gospel truth i these particular countries.but it n o does not tell them how far t go i t i direction. the precise-looking figures arrived a t should be treated with extreme caution by practical planners and policy-makers. And while w can usefully e learn from history. o t i any event.The second question o n hs is perhaps their biggest problem. though primary education is not i itself conn sidered a preparation for work. But it does n illustrate the sort of provocative hypotheses that such studiesthrust up which can lead t further useful inquiry. it is f i to say that the rate-of-return ar approach a its t present experimental stage of development tells us much more about the past than it does about the future. Even such a synthesis. By now even the most partisan proponents of these different approaches concede that a new synthesis of al three is needed. A the very least it emphasizes the constant need to t examine alternatives and t weigh their respective costs and benefits o as best one can before leaping t a decision. But the conclusion and 4s . It tells them o i what direction to put more resources t get the best yield. None the less.

46 .What is educational planning? we wl come to later is that educational planning now needs to get il down inside the system and change it to make it more relevant and efficient and productive. This is the main way to raise the future rate of return on educational investments.

ttsia of enrolments. ( ) the training of people who could apply these research results and 2 planning methodologies in real situations. and ( ) the creation and 3 o adaptation of organizational and administrative arrangements t enable planning t function. Training and research The previously-mentioned Unesco regional conferences early in the 1960s inspired a large volume of requests from developing nations for 47 .ways oftranslatingdemographicand manpower data into future enrolment patterns.teachers. 1. steady progress was made on enlarging the tool-kitfor planning. It may be of interest to sketch briefly what they did. In short.g.Theseincluded. example: for better s a i t c lmethods for making various types of projections (e.They were:(1) research and diagnosis to illuminate the key problems confronting educational planning.Unesco in particular.that provided n the prime leadership i helping the whole world t make substantial n o progress on the above three fronts during the 1960s.equipaiiis ment and materials).requirements for classroom f c l t e . o It is satisfying for anyone who believes in the importance of multilateral agencies to observe that it was these agencies.but also the OECD i the case of Western Europe.Purl Five Recent progress i n putting theory into practice In addition to the broader concepts and methodologiesjust discussed. more reliable means for estimating future costs and financialrequirements. But three other basic steps w r required before these better ee tools could be used effectively. ee numerous specific techniques useful to educational planning w r developedand improvedduring the 1960s.

w r i wide ee n circulation and use throughout the world.Subsequentlythe Institutereceived generous support also from individual governments and non-governmental organizations.in co-operation aiiis with the developing nations themselves.and by linking themar selves closely to the countries where pertinent experience was being generated.What i educational planning? s technical assistance in educational planning.a large number ras i of such publications. To provide a nexus for these regional centres and i for universities and other organizationsthat might be attracted to t i hs f e d of training. o To meet these needs. The I E i particular sought t collect. This.Unesco (with the il o co-operationof the World Bank.The subject was just being evolved and part of their job was t help i the process.Unesco established regional training centres for Latin America ( n Santiago de C i e . By forming interdisciplinary o n staffsand achieving a f i measure of continuity.the Ford Foundation and the French Government) established in Paris i 1963 the International Institute n for EducationalPlanning. Despite the extreme world-wideshortage of such expert personnel.Unesco responded vigorously by sending out during the 1960s a total ofmore than 150 shortt r missions and over 140 longer-termresident advisory experts on em educational planning. could be only a provisional solution. ee o t for there was very little literature and no organized body of knowledge on educational planning. These new training organizationsw r forced t improvise a first. for the Arab States( n B i u ) and for the new African i i ert. Even more important was the need to help each country t acquire its own indigenous planning o experts in order t become self-sufficientas soon as possible. There was evident need t train a cadre of more highly qualified educationalplano ning experts for international service.create and disseminate t i IP n o hs new knowledge through a wide-ranging publications programme which included research reports and instructional materials aimed at bridging the communications gap between researchers and practitioners and a remedying the world-wideshortage of good training matt e i l .and to give an impetus t research.Between 1960 and 1963.the regional centres and the I E gradually became storage IP and retrieval centres for new knowledge as it emerged from fresh research and experience. By 1969.s x years after the Institute’screation.translated into various languages. nations ( n Dakar). Unesco set about creating a network of new training and research f c l t e .coveriiig 80 countries. 48 . however. for Asia i hl) ( n New Delhi).

i the l t 1 6 s OECD’sDevelopment n ae 9 0 Assistance Committee was instrumental i prodding donor nations n into giving greater attention and support t educational planning and o development i their programmes of assistance t developing nations.North America and Japan t do creative work on the more o theoreticaland methodological frontiersof educational planning. o The IIEP’strainees. Beyond this.a a more advanced level. moreover.a substantial i i i l nta cadre of planners had been trained and dispersed throughoutthe world. and effective co-operationand communicationbetween producers and consumers of research i t i new area had been achieved. The great majority w r o f c a s of devele ul e e fiil oping countries who returned home t apply what they had learned.ranging from a t lP f w weeks to a f l year. Unesco was the main catalytic agent for t i movement. By 1970 it could truly be said that.and it stimulated interest in planning i the education ministries of its n member states. several hundred persons had received formal training a the I E and the Unesco regional centres. ils 49 .The OECD’s n direct training activities w r limited. n o Then i 1968 the OECD created a Centre for Educational Research n and Innovation with a mandate t help its member states to bring o about overdue educational reforms and innovations.but the OECD also played a o notable role i the developed world. Though n hs there was still a long way to go.Recent progress in putting theory into practice By then. a sizeable s a t had been made.scholars and students of numerous universities and other organizations that were building research and training programmes in t i f e d h s il. an international community of educational planning had come into being. I tr t would be d f i u t t match t i record of rapid progress i many other ifcl o hs n f e d of scholarships and practice.especially hs with respect t the developing regions.and a growing number ofpeople who went on t become o teachers and research workers in educational planning i regional n centres.thanks to the major initiatives taken by multilateral agencies and to the abundant co-operationof university scholars and many others. The IIEP also became a meeting-groundand exchange centre for the officials. but it marshalled intellectual talents i Western ee n Europe. An impressive new body of knowledge had been created and disseminated. also included a good t number of international expert advisers who went out t serve develo oping nations.universities and national training institutions.

what is his role in an educational establishment? What are his responsibilitieswith regard to policy and decisionmaking ? What special qualities and skills does an educational planner need? H o w exactly can a training and research programme help him to acquire these? The practical-minded participants in these training programmes never forgot that they would eventually be returning to their ministries or other home organizations and would be expected to bring something useful with them.They quickly saw the value and pertinence of the new methodologies to which they were exposed and they rapidly acquired critical insights into their own educational systems through comparing them with others and discovering many of the same basic problems and defects. where does he fit in.to make them see that they l all-up and down the line.What is educational planning’? 2. was gratifying to the training staff.Educational planning.a real improveil ment in it? What changes wl be needed in our organizational and administrative set-up in order for planning to take hold? What can just one individual do to move this mountain of inertia which stands in the way of doing things differently and better ?H o w can we convince the top people that such changes are imperative. What can we do with what we have learned when we get home? H o w can we apply these concepts. This was the key problem-how to make planning part of the life-style of everyone in the educational system. Implementing planning Several tough questions immediately confronted the new training and research programmes: What is an educational planner ? What does he do. But a l this provoked them into asking theml selves and others a persistent set of questions.methodologies and new information il to our situation so that they wl make a real difference. SO . that they must be the real planners? This last question. though loaded with anxiety. that planning simply won’t work otherwise? Most of all. what can be done to change the attitudes and perceptions of a l concerned.for it showed that their efforts had not been for naught. regardless of how good its methodologies may be. can never really work w l unless the administrative milieu is favourable. as it is of how the various participants on the scene think about planning and how they perceive their own particular role in relation to the planning process. from classroom teacher to Prime Minister -must be ‘planning minded’. This is less el a matter of how the boxes are arranged on the organizational chart or of how the job descriptions read.

These obstacles. the reasons w saw earlier. o t i e for e The point t be emphasized here.doctrine and style of administration.which still e i t i most countries. and The organizational compartments were mutually exclusive and their communications ran mostly straight up and down. n staffing operatingthe educationalsystem.most of hs n 51 . There re o was in fact no great need t a the t m .or they wl wilfully resent or o il ignore i.or t i d t plan it as a whole. Such a unit can quickly find itself effectively frozen out of the main arena of decisive action.Those i that arena wl either n il be too busy to co-operatewith the new planning unit and to use it effectively t help them with their work. o rules and regulations. Most were designed for o o rule-making and caretaking in educational systems where the central government and public authorities played only a modest role. s a f and inspectorate tf responsible for supervising any particular level or type of education -such as primary or secondary or technicaleducation-lived i splenn did isolation from the others.and not least of al the bureaucratic attitudes.is that the habit patterns. expanding or changing them.its own budget. t This tended t be the case even where the central government played o a major role i financing. however. t None of t i is said i criticism of the individuals involved. doctrines and philosophies.prerogatives and self-perceptionsthat l grew out of t i setting became serious obstacles when the need arose hs for a more comprehensive kind of planning. t the man a the o t top and t the clients below. The principal officer.rarely was there horizontal communicao tion with those concerned with other parts of the system.Recent progress in putting theory into practice The plain fact-and the first thing for everyone t be clear abouto is that the administrative set-upsand environments which most educational systems have carried over from the past w r never designed ee t play host t a modern brand of planning. It is not surprisingthat i these circumstancesno one really saw the n educational system as a system. Each group had its own organization box. by an arbiter a the top. It was as ifthe education department or ministry was a loose federation of rival f e s kept in check by an unwritten non-aggressionpact and if. In such situations the n central educational administration was usually characterized by a clear division of labour.cannot be overxs n come merely by tacking a new planning unit on t the old administrao tive structure. The main initiative and responsibility for creating and running educational institutions. were left largely i private or local government hands.ground rules. for financing.

The heart of the problem is that they are the products and prisoners of an outmoded.regulation-oriented administrative system which by its very nature inhibits good planning and e f c e t action. relationships.happily.teachers. But they cannot even put the picture together.Not until the grip of its inertia is broken by necessary changes of attitude. constraints. 52 .can planning really function wl and educational development move smoothly forel ward. Those who have had an opportunity t compare educational plano ning efforts over a wide cross-sectionof nations would probably al l agree that planning works best where ( ) top political and educational a leaders genuinely believe i its necessity. fiin nl In the l s analysis. il In more and more countries.What i educational planning? s whom have risen heroically t the new challenges.and accomplished amazing amounts.an educational system wl be wl planned and at il el its plans wl implemented only i those responsible for its various parts el f are themselves good planners. This is simply t say that educational planning is not the exclusive o job of the full-timetechnical planners who occupy the central educational planning unit. but in some it is still little more than a pious wish and a costly source of frustration. much less interpret it wisely.give it their strong support. t i new climate is gradually hs being achieved. Planning c l s for l n al a wide and e f c e tcommunicationsnetwork that runs i aldirections.and not until a new planning-mindednesspermeates the whole system.and only if each concedes that h s subi plans must be mediated and meshed with al others into a consistent l and unified whole that wl serve the best interests of the total system. n they can identify major trends. ( ) al others n and b l with a serious stake i the educational system-lower-level adminisn trators. without the willing and continuous involvement of al their colleagues i other boxes. options. There is no simple fiin cure for these ailments. They must piece together the over-allpicture with scrapsof information and ideas drawn from many sources. students. Seeing the system i broad perspective. n and make serious use of it i their decision-making.structure and procedure.parents and employers-have been given a f i chance for their voices t be heard i the process of formulating ar o n plans for the future. and educational planning is becoming increasingly effective. needs and opportunities and bring these to the attention of others for discussion and action. Their role is a very important one.worked exceedingly o hard under trying conditions.

They are beset by rss a mountainous backlog of unfinished business and besieged by staggering problems that threaten to grow worse. Fourth. unified approach. Second. a general appreciationofplanning must be i s i l d ut and ntle 53 .the numerous methodologies required to apply t i more unified approach must be furtherrefined and strengthhs ened. o In particular w have examined that extraordinary s i e of turbulent e lc history since the Second World War which has created an imperative need throughout the world for drastically new approaches to educational planning.Third. lw a larger cadre of people with broad technical competence in planning m s be trained. Despite the considerable progress made. In this final section we turn to the future and ask where educational planning should go from here. and rate-of-return) must now be synthesized into a more coherent.a gigantic effort must be made by al educational systems l to improvethe information f o s needed for effective planning. Indeed. How can educational planning help them? H o w must it be strengthened t do this? What o further new dimensions must it acquire? Five particular needs for improvement stand out within the framework of educational planning as it has been conceived in recent years.after more than a decade of unparalleledexpansion. F r t the three approachesdiscussed earlier (socialdemand.manpower is.educational systemsvirtually everywhere confront the future in a state of c i i .Part Six A look into the future W e have tried i this booklet to achieve a better understanding of n educational planning by examining its functions and observing how it has taken many different shapes and formst fit many different needs.the educational challenges of the post-warera and the formidable problems t which they have o given rise are still a very long way from being met.

they wl compound n il the already serious maladjustments between themselves and their society.though essential.jeopardize their own survival and al n impose untold penalties on future generations.because the three approaches t il o educational planning considered earlier ignore one important factor.exacerbate the crisis that already il grips them. wl not be nearly enough. f el they must now make these changes i their inner life with dispatch: n changes i their specific objectives and priorities. f hs without abandoning its macro-view. I educational systems are to serve their students and society w l . Moreover.attitudes and behaviour patterns must be drastically altered to accomodate effective planning. Improved performance does 54 . some of the most pressing educational needs. must now turn its attention more seriously to the internal a f i s of education.they wl waste resources.then it followsthat educationalplanning. il n l But what is perhaps not so obvious is that al of these things. ciiis To ignore these imperatives is to court disaster.more il e f c e t i their use of available resources.but they have taken much too little account of the inner life of the system and its need for drastic change. and a more effective force fiin n for individual and social development.content and methods. n Fifth.What is educational planning'! i many others whose participation in the planning process is essential. I traditional eduf cational systemscontinue t pursue the simplistic expansionist strategy o of making themselves larger i their old image. i their internal n n structure. n i the processes of teaching and learning.The whole idea of lifelong education needs to be transformed from inspired rhetoric to an orderly reality. I t i diagnosis is correct. The aim must be t far o improve the performance of educational systems through changes that wl make them more relevant to the needs of their clientdes. The above needs are so obvious and already so widely recognized that they wl undoubtedly receive major attention i coming years. They have usefully brought the larger outlines and relationships of the educational system into sharper focus. involving people outside the formal educational structure. organizational and administrative arrangements.But t i can only happen hs as the traditional institutional and psychological barriers between inschool and out-of-schoollearning are removed and the two sets of a t v t e become jointly planned and better integrated.i the s y e and methods of n n tl governance and management. f i i their mission.must now be facedupto more seriouslyand creative solutions found. i the training and use of teachers.

then the system wl be a war il t with i s l and its basic aims wl be defeated.Likewise. seems a f i guess.if the specific objectives ofvarious educational sub-systemsare incompatible with the whole system’sbroader aims.Therefore the dominant emphasis of the strategy now called for must not be upon expansion per se-though certainly more expansion wl be needed-but il upon change and adaptation.and society’sneeds wl suffer. it means doing things differently and doing different things.If the de facto aims of an educational system (as distinct from its stated aims) are inconsistent with its society’sprincipal goals. For al these reasons.maladjustments are bound t develop between o il the system and society. priorities. 1.that o It ar the new frontiersfor educational planning i coming years wl include n il itd the five main territories l s e below. But t i is tantamount t hs o conceding that the very institution which is supposed to foster i t l i neltef gent behaviour i others is incapable of acting intelligently i s l . ensure that they are to compatible with one another and with the society’s major goals. The chief losers i this tef il n il l event wl be its students. Some may throw up their hands and say that t i cannot be done. What sort of educational planning is required t serve this new o strategy? Certainly it wl have t include good macro-planning that il o focuses on the broad dimensions of the system and its relationships with the economy and society.worse still.i irreconciln able conflict between divergent interests.therefore. Refinement of objectives Without clearly stated objectives and priorities there is no adequate basis either for evaluating an educational system’sperformance or for planning its future intelligently.that a best it ends i re ie t n murky rhetoric which everyone can accept.or. But beyond this there must be new forms of micro-planningthat apply t the inner processes of the system o and t its numerous sub-systems.A look into the futurc not mean simply doing better what is already being done.the essential first step toward improving an educational system’srelevance and performance is t re-examineand clarify its basic aims and priorities and the more o specific objectives of each of its sub-systems.and needs. hs that it has been t i d many t m s and failed. blind faith and stultifying compromise. 55 .that n an educational system has no choice but to run on the basis of folklore.

t i tm relying less on prevailing doctrines and h s ie prejudices t supply the goals and priorities.from the broad aims of the educational system as a whole to the more specific objectives of its particular sub-systems. In al events.or i n n using arithmetic.as one moves from the general to the particular.it wl always be d f i u t il ifcl to define the broad aims of any educational system as a whole i anyn thing but quite general terms that inevitably lend themselves t difo ferent interpretations.Certainly. becomes it easier to define objectives i operationally meaningful terms and to n use these defined objectives as c i e i for testing performance.Even so. n In point of fact.experts i educational tests and measurements are n making significant progress i devising more flexible and diversified n means for evaluating various kinds of desired educational outcomes on the part of individual students. second half involves changing how it is doing it. This is half of what educational change is al about.W h y then should it not be possible t adapt some of these instruments and to devise further ones for o testing the performance of the system iself-provided that there are some clear objectives against which t assess performance ? o 2.There rtra is a vast difference. the situation calls l for a further attempt. The first half l involves changing what the system is doing. What is more important. It el also affords a basis for comparing alternative ways of pursuing any particular learning objective and for determining which of these is the most efficacious. to determine whether these behaviours are reasonably consistent with the avowed aims of the system and the evident goals and needs of society.but to o provide a basis for checking how wl it is actually doing them.between the broad aim o producing f ‘goodcitizens’or ‘liberallyeducated persons’and such specific objectives as developing a definable level of competence i reading.it should be possible for social scientists t check i various ways on the actual behaviour of the system and o n on the competencies and behaviour of the people it produces.W h a t is educational planning? This seems a dubious conclusion.t make it more relevant o and up-to-date.and much more on guido ance provided by rational analysis.for example. or i employing a foreign language. the 56 . Evaluation of system performance A clarification of educational objectives is essential not only to ensure that the system is striving t do the right and relevant things.

cost ceilings and t m l m t t o s .the f l potential of the t A ul new component is unlikely t be realized. The problem then is 57 . o The alternative approach is t use the method of ‘systemdesign’. s a result.given the job of putting a t f man on the moon.and some wl il o il fit into the general context better than others.they wl need a variety of diagnostic il tools with which t assess their performance. Each such potential system wl involve il a somewhat different combination of components (inputs) and a somewhat different technology.because it has not been looked a as a ‘system’.or it can be doing the right things very inefficiently. o which has been used very successfully in many other f e d (including ils actually getting some men t the moon). with a definition of the results desired (the ‘objectives’)and the various controlling constraints and environmentalfactors t be observed (such as the background of the o students.as for example. This works the other way o round. If educational systems are t make changes for the better and not o simply for the sake of change.A n educational system o fiin can be doing the wrong things very efficiently.they wl need new techniques for doing n il it. it begins with a clear set of o ‘performancespecifications’. A systems approach t educational design o Since educational systems wl have t change more frequently and il o more rapidly than i the past. identify opportunities o for improvement. languagelaboratory or a fl projector to the conventional a im classroom procedures. The usual way has been ad hoc. piecemeal and episodic and has typically involved superimposing something new on top of the old. Instead of starting with an old system that is not performing satisfactorily and trying t patch it up. The next step is t devise ie i i a i n ) o a variety of alternative possible ‘systems’that might be employed to achieve the specified results.adding instructional television.and the improvement i the work of the class may o n prove disappointing.that is. The estimated costs and the l k l iey results (outputs) wl also vary from system t system.A look into the future t make the process more e f c e tand effective.In e f c this changes the old ‘teaching-learning fet system’but without consciously designing a new one.its cost wl be a net addition o il t the old costs. began w t the biplane and t i d t add things ih re o that would get it t the moon. ie 3.Both possibilities must be examined i n judging its performance.and monitor their progress over t m . without really changing the old. I is as i someone.

Among these are the methodologies used for operations research i n other fields which. The chances are also that it wl itd n pay t test out a variety of different ‘systems’ doing the same job o for i a number of comparable situations so that a good supply of solid n evidence wl be generated with which t compare their respective il o costs and results.New management styles and measures The various measures already mentioned constitute important devices for the better management of educational systems. but the practical techniques still require development and testing out. Once these are available.the PERTsystem of schedulingcomplex projects and programm s. The basic principles to be followed i educational systems design n are clear enough.I wl clearly pay neighbouring educational systems t il to co-operate i a broad research and development programme so n that they can experiment collectively i ways that none could afford n alone. (Included i t i n hs concept of management are the planners.What is educational planning? to compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of these alternative systems and t select the one which. e and related techniques of cost-benefitanalysis. The effective planning and management of a modern educational system requires also a minimum of c i i a indicators which regularly rtcl reveal t al concerned what is happening t major variables and o l o relationships within the system and t crucial relationships between o the system and its environment. n hs o accomplish various wl defined objectives.continuous process of educational selfrenewal.they can become an effective part of a built-in. But additional tools wl also be needed. evaluators and decisionmakers not only i thefronto f c oftheministry but i every classroom n fie n as w l . 58 . various methods of cost analysis and cost-efectiveness testing.seems o l best suited to the purpose and the circumstances. the chances are that the el optimum one wl usually include some combinationof old things and il il new. properly adapted. In designing new ‘teaching-learningsystems’ i t i manner t. might be profitably applied t o o education:programme budgeting geared t specified accomplishment targets. f t e together i a new way. 4.many of which are el) il already within reach and simply require further refinement and testing.al things considered.

t the pattern of revenues by sources. salary tf levels and years of service.the il more sophisticated the educational system.they have devoted little of their 59 . the more extensive its management information system can be. What constitutes the desirable minimum of indicators of this sort wl depend on what is necessary and feasible in each situation. qualifications.and i teaching hours.Intensified research and development Although educationalinstitutionshave been major s i n i i spawningcetfc grounds for great technologicalbreakthroughs i such other f e d as n ils medicine.the total number of students o enrolled at each major level. Similarly it i not enough to know the general trend and breakdown s of gross expenditures as revealed by the nationaleducation budget. If teacher supplies.A look into tlic future It is not enough t know.but by indicators which reveal what has happened t previous graduates (and non-graduates)-which is the ultimate o acid test of the educational system’scontribution.changes i class s z i various parts of the n ie n system. there must be indicators that reveal trends in the distribution of the teaching s a f by age.it i importantt know also what is happening t unit costs throughout s o o o o the system.it is also important to know how they are distributed geographically and by grade levels and programme areas.for example. n The output and effectiveness of the system must be monitored not only by indicators showing trends i the annual number of graduates n of different types.costs and utilization are to be more intelligently assessed and planned. I must operate with its eyes tl t wide open.industry and agriculture. 5. N o w that education has become the largest economic enterprise in most countries and a major influence on the whole economy and society.But eventhe simplestand least developed educational system-or individual school or universitywl find it very worth while to know much more about i s l than it il tef has ever known before.t the relationship ofeducational expendituresto total public expenditures and the GNP. together with key information about rates of promotion and attrition in different parts of the system.it can hardly afford to be managed i n the s y e of a modest family business.what changes are taking place i the profile of socio-economic n background and of academic qualifications of the student body.

and research and development.including many wl acquainted w t educational el ih planning.educational systems wl prt cetfc il continue to p l new things on old l k geological layers.‘Whatis educational planning?’the answer 60 .of course.pedagogy.has been too undernourished and fragmented and often too unrelated to the really v t l problems ia facing educational systems t have had a very substantial over-all o impact.Moreover. if one accept these boundaries as they il have been conceived ofi the past.and considerably more interdisciplinaryi character. To extend educational planning i this manner wl inevitably mean n il merging it more intimately with the processes of management. W e can end this booklet with a prediction. But this isjustthe point.less a thing apart.and o lacking a pervasive s i i of s i n i i inquiry.though it tef has occasionally yielded useful results.and to have ie ie i l f t i ginnovations forced upon them from the outside. This wl make planning less il distinguishable from other functions.not least of a l the teachers.Traditional educational research.and establishing the necessary institutional arrangements t undergird the process. To serve the present urgent need for educational systems to change and renew themselves i virtually every resn pect. The only way that change and innovation can become a continuous process and a normal way of life for educational systemsisby mobilizing more of each system’sown creative brainpower for the purpose.educationalplanning wl become il the standard business of virtually every operatori the system.includn ing. l. l-itn To many people.Instead of being regarded as n the special domain of a f w technical planning experts occupying a e back room near the Minister’s office. When someone asks.most research oft i type has been too narrowly and hs exclusively pedagogical i its focus to embrace the interdisciplinary n problems that plague educational systems today. the new frontiersjust sketched may appear a first sight t t o lie beyond the proper boundaries of educational planning. a decade or two from now.investing much more money i n educational research and development.the previous conception of educational planning must be broadened still further t include the planning of internal changes i these o n systems.What is educational planning? talents i the past t achieving comparable breakthroughs i the techn o n niques of education i s l .the boundn aries must be widened. Lacking this. involving a wide variety of disciplines.And they wl be quite right.

while educational planning can make valuable use of s i n i i methods and modes of thinking. And he wl o n il no doubt end by saying that.and is still changing too rapidly. as the present il author did. eslk r 61 .it is none cetfc the l s .and a good deal longer and more complex. The man answering the question wl begin. il than the transitory answer given in these pages.by observing that educational planning is too complex and diversified a thing.A look into the future he gets wl be very different. But one thing wl be il the same.to fit any simple definition or t be encased i any single general theory.i e education itself-more of an a t than a science.

Scranton. obtainable from the Institute are or from Unesco and its national distributors throughout the world: Educational deuelopinent i Africu (1969. Coombs.IIEP book list The following books.H.Schramm. J.London and Toronto. o F. Pa. Coombs rss Published by Oxford University Press. A report including analytical conclusions based on the above three volumes of case studies) Problems and strategies o educationalplanning: lessons from Latin America (1 965) f Qnalitatiue aspects o educationalplanning (I 969) f Research for educationalplanning: notes on emergent needs by William J.are obtainable through normal bookselling channels: Quantitatiue methods o educationalplanning by HBctor Correa f Published by International Textbook Co.Three volumes.Chesswas (1968) fv ils Monographirs africaines ( i e t t e ..Three volumes) n The new media: memo t educational planners by W.produced in but not published by the Institute.1969 The world educationalc i i : a systems analysis by Philip H. in French only: list available on request) New educationalmedia i action: case studiesfor planners (1967. containing eleven African n research monographs) Educationalplanning: a bibliography (1 964) Educationalplanning: a directory o training and research i s i u i n (1968) f ntttos Educationalplanning i the USSR (1968) n fl t Fundamentals o educationalplanning ( u l list a front of this volume) f Manpower aspects o educationalplanning (1968) f Methodologies o educationalplanning for developing countries f by J. 1968 . Platt (1970) The followingbooks. D. Lyle (1967. P..published by Unesco/lIEP.Kahnert. New York.

Asian Institute for Economic Development and Planning Philippe de Seynes (France). Rural Institutionsand Services Division. Under-Secretary-General Economic for and Social Apdirs. Agricultural Education Branch.A. former Dircctor.S. In this endeavour the Institute co-operatedwith interested training and research organizations throughout the world. Demuth (United States of America). Dircctor. Kothari (India).N.International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) Abdel-AzizEl-Koussy (United Arab Republic). former Minister of Economic Planning and Bai) Development Richard H. Wilson (United Kingdom). Director.University Grants Commission S. President. President.The International Institute for Educational Planning The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) was established by o Unesco in 1963t serveas an internationalcentrefor advanced training and research in the f e d of educational planning. Shumovsky (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).London i School of Economics and Political Science Hellmut Becker (Federal Republic of Germany). German Federation of Adult Education Centres Alain Bienaym6 (France).Prasad (India). t o The Institute's aim is t expand knowledge and the supply of competent experts in educational planning in order to assist al nations to accelerate their educational l development. Head. IIEP. Ministry of Higher and Specialized Secondary Education (RSFSR) Fergus B. Development Services Department. Methodological Administration Department. P. Paris-16" . Technical Adviser. Ministry of Education Roberto Campos ( r z l . Regional Centre for Educational Planning and Administration in the Arab Countries Joseph Ki-Zerbo(Upper Volta).National Commission of the Republic of Upper Volta for Unesco D. Director. Chairman. Chief.9 rue Eugene-Delacrok. aiiis I also receives supplemental support from private and governmental sources. The governing board of the Instituteis as follows: Chairman S r Sydney Caine (United Kingdom).Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Menzbers Inquiries about the Institute and requests for copies of its latest progress report should be adressed to: 75 The Director. United Nations S. Its basic financing is provided by Unesco il and the Ford Foundation and its physical f c l t e by the Government of France.