The balanced scorecard for school management: case study of Thai public schools.

 

1. Research Title
   The balanced scorecard for school management: case study of Thai public schools.
2. Researcher & Institutional Affiliation
   Nopadol Rompho, Department of Operations Management & Center of Operations and Information Management, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
3. Research Objectives

• Propose a Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework tailored to Thai public schools.
• Empirically test causal relationships among BSC perspectives (Students, Internal Processes, Learning & Growth, Resources) using large-scale school data.

4. Research Methodology

• Design: Quantitative, cross-sectional.
• Sample: 3,351 Thai public schools participating in the “Pracharath” project (government–private sector collaboration).
• Measures: KPIs mapped to four perspectives:
  • Students (academic excellence; good behaviour)
  • Internal Processes (for academic excellence; for good behaviour)
  • Learning & Growth (teacher quality; teacher ICT/English)
  • Resources (basic infrastructure: electricity, internet, computers, water, campus-wide coverage)
• Respondents: Students, teachers, English teachers, parents, principals; project partners verified data.
• Analysis: Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test causal paths; model fit accepted (e.g., RMSEA ≈ 0.024). Expert panel (9 education experts) reviewed and interpreted results.

5. Findings & Recommendations
   Key empirical findings

• Strong positive paths:
  • Learning & Growth → Internal Processes (both academic & behaviour processes).
  • Internal Processes → Student outcomes (academic excellence & good behaviour).
• No significant path from Resources (basic infrastructure) to Internal Processes or Learning & Growth in this dataset (likely because nearly all schools already had baseline infrastructure).
• Descriptives: ONET mean ≈ 37.84%; STEM teaching weakest among process items; student behaviour generally moderate; teacher development perceived as improving.

Practice-oriented recommendations (from study discussion)

• Use the validated “generic” BSC + strategy map as a starting template, then localize targets/initiatives.
• Prioritize teacher quality development (core driver) before adding new infrastructure.
• Strengthen community-linked processes (knowledge-sharing; behaviour-support activities; public participation in budgeting).
• Set measurable targets per KPI; review annually.

6. Key Insights and Implications

• Teacher quality is the pivotal intangible resource driving process quality and, through it, student outcomes.
• Basic infrastructure at “minimum viable levels” is necessary but not sufficient to lift processes—quality/usage matters more than mere availability.
• A validated, system-level BSC for schools can reduce “indicator overload,” clarify cause–effect logic, and guide strategy execution.

7. Actionable Recommendations (ready to apply in schools)

• Build your school’s BSC around four perspectives with the tested linkages; start with a one-page strategy map.
• Invest in Learning & Growth: coherent teacher development plans (pedagogy, STEM capability, ICT/English), coaching, and performance feedback.
• Upgrade Internal Processes: child-centric pedagogy, ethics education, STEM lesson design, and structured community engagement calendars.
• Calibrate Student KPIs: combine ONET and value/behaviour rubrics; track quarterly.
• Treat Resources as “enablers”: audit quality/uptime/coverage and teacher usage of ICT, not just presence.
• Govern with targets: set baseline → target → initiatives → quarterly reviews; publish a concise scorecard to staff/community.

8. Summary
   Using data from 3,351 Thai public schools and SEM, the study validates a school-specific Balanced Scorecard: Learning & Growth (teacher quality) drives Internal Processes (for academics and behaviour), which in turn drive Student outcomes; baseline Resources showed no direct effect in this sample. The model offers a practical, evidence-based template schools can adapt, highlighting teacher development and process excellence as the most effective levers for improving student achievement and behaviour.
9. References for this Research (select)

• Rompho, N. (2020). The balanced scorecard for school management: case study of Thai public schools. Measuring Business Excellence, 24(3), 285–300.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 150–161.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Storey, A. (2002). Performance management in schools: could the balanced scorecard help? School Leadership & Management, 22(3), 321–338.
• Yüksel, H., & Coşkun, A. (2013). Strategy-focused schools: An implementation of the balanced scorecard. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 2450–2459.