1. Dr. Lynn Kitchen
February 3, 2008
The Program Planning Model (PPM) that Delbecq and Van de Ven present offers change
agents and clients a guide through the entire planning process. The most powerful aspect, in my
estimation, is its focus on “situations where a variety of groups, fragmented in terms of vested
interests, rhetorical and ideological concepts, and differentiated expertise” must work together to
bring about change (1976). Any major change in a school setting will inevitably meet this
description. Administrators, teachers, auxiliary staff, parents and community members can
rarely be expected to agree on the ways and means of any significant change.
I will apply the PPM to the process of addressing the problem of uncompleted homework
assignments. Our school currently uses a program that is really only successful in recognizing
and documenting that students did not complete assignments. Little is done to remedy the
problem. There are significant problems for teachers, parents and students. Teachers are
burdened with extra paperwork and duties (following up with parents and monitoring the after-
school detentions). Parents are unhappy with the status quo because they are frequently called
upon to provide transportation after school because the students have to miss busses for the
detentions. Students are punished twice – once when they do not practice the material and once
when they are assigned detention – for not completing assignments, often because parents are
unwilling to help them.
In Phase I of the PPM, I would invite parents of from different grade levels and different
achievement levels to meet with teachers from each grade level and content area to meet with
me, the principal. At the meeting, all participants would be asked to record personal problem
areas and organizational problem areas on separate pieces of paper. Individuals would then
share their responses, while a recorder collects them into one large list each for personal and

2. organizational problem areas. The focus of these lists would be to generate as many possible
problem areas that the group might need to discuss. The final step of this phase would be to
determine the major problems and the minor ones.
Phase II would begin at a meeting with representatives of the Phase I meeting getting
together with specialists in the field – in this case, other teachers and administrators in the
district. The new group would then identify all possible resources in an attempt to match
existing resources and programs with new resources and possible programs in order to maximize
the effectiveness of the program that is eventually decided upon. The goal of this meeting would
be to identify those resources and program components that are absolutely necessary to
successful implementation of a program that will facilitate the completion of homework – and,
therefore, retention of new information.
Phase III would entail a meeting of building as well as district administration personnel to
determine any reservations or concerns that may exist over the agreed-upon resources and
components. In essence, these administrators – charged with supervising the new program –
would trouble-shoot any issues that might not be of concern or consequence to the parents or
teachers. With the blessing of the administrators, the key proponents of the planned program
would begin developing the finalized plan of implementation, thereby completing Phase IV. The
individuals that came up with and defended the agreed-upon plan will be responsible for Phase
IV.
To complete the PPM, I would re-invite the members of each of the meetings in earlier
phases to come participate in a meeting in which the final plan is shared. The goal of this
meeting would be threefold: First, change clients would be reintroduced to the process to
reinvigorate them. Second, the group members would serve as “proof-readers” to note any

3. issues that were overlooked by the Phase IV team. Finally, the meeting would inform the varied
group of shareholders as to the decision and plan so that they can become critical elements of
change that can be relied upon to assist in the implementation process.
References
Delbecq, A. and Van de Ven, A. (1976). Model for problem identification and program
planning. In Bennis, et.al. (Eds), The planning of change (3rd ed.) New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.