Schools rarely fail at strategy because of apathy, incompetence, or a lack of good intent.

They don't thrive because what they call strategy is usually something else (aka strategic planning).

Before talking about what a good strategy enables, it’s worth being clear about the four most common red flags that signal a school is operating in a planning cycle, not making strategic choices.

Common Red Flags of School Strategy

Dr Marc Sniukas wrote a post titled “Seven Red Flags of Strategy”, highlighting common misconceptions that exist in the corporate world about strategy.

Educators, you can take a breather; schools are not alone in their misunderstanding of this critical success determinant.

So, this post highlights four of those that are prevalent throughout Australian public, independent, and Catholic schools.

1. “It’s Not a Strategy”

This shows up as a long list of priorities, initiatives, and goals.

Everything sounds essential, but there are no clear choices—especially the choices about what you WON’T do.

In schools, this often looks like:

• wellbeing initiatives sit beside academic improvement initiatives
• digital transformation alongside culture, facilities, enrolments, and marketing
• all framed as simultaneous priorities

This isn’t a strategy. It’s an inventory of good intentions.

2. Everybody’s Darling Strategy

This is strategy designed to keep everyone comfortable.

Consultation is extensive. Language is softened. Trade-offs are avoided.

In schools, this often shows up as:

• pillars broad enough that every faculty can see themselves reflected
• decisions deferred in the name of alignment
• consensus valued over choice

If no one is disappointed, strategy has probably been avoided.

3. Ivory Tower Strategy

This is strategy that sounds impressive but struggles to survive contact with daily school life.

In schools, this often looks like:

• aspirational language disconnected from timetables, staffing, or budgets
• strategy owned by the executive, but untranslated for middle leaders and teachers

If people can’t see what changes on Monday morning, the strategy is ornamental.

4. Microwave Strategy

This is borrowed strategy.

Programs, models, or approaches are adopted because they have worked elsewhere.

In schools, this often appears as:

• copying high-performing schools without interrogating context
• confusing precedent with proof
• mistaking novelty for strategic fit

What works elsewhere is not a strategy. Fit matters more than fashion.

What Strategy Actually Is (in a School Context)

Real strategy is not a document. It is a decision.

In schools, strategy exists when leaders have:

• made an explicit choice about what matters most
• clarified a singular priority that disciplines all other decisions
• simplified complexity so effort can be focused, not scattered

Strategy decides direction. Planning organises effort.

If, after a strategy is set, people are still unclear about what truly matters, then the strategy has failed.

Where Curriculum Planning Fits

Curriculum planning is not strategy.

Planning is what follows strategy.

Once a school is clear on its strategic direction and singular priority, the curriculum becomes the practical expression of that choice. It is where educators are informed by strategy, not burdened by it.

This is where many schools get the sequence wrong. In the absence of a clear strategy, curriculum teams are implicitly asked to solve strategic problems: differentiation, market positioning, identity, growth, and relevance. Curriculum becomes crowded not because teachers lack discipline, but because strategy has failed to do its upstream work.

What Strategic Curriculum Planning Actually Looks Like

When strategy is clear, curriculum planning changes in concrete ways.

First, curriculum design becomes selective rather than expansive. Not every worthwhile idea makes it into scope. Leaders are clearer about which capabilities, dispositions, or learning experiences matter most now, and which can wait. This is not about narrowing education, but about sequencing it.

Second, coherence matters more than coverage. Subjects, year levels, and pedagogical approaches are shaped around a shared strategic intent rather than optimised independently. Curriculum stops being a collection of well-designed parts and starts behaving like a system.

Third, trade-offs become legitimate. Strategic clarity permits curriculum leaders to say no. No to additional programs, no to fashionable add-ons, no to initiatives that dilute focus, even if they are individually defensible.

What This Looks Like in Practice

In practice, this often shows up in small but telling ways.

A school with a clear strategic priority around depth of learning may deliberately reduce curriculum breadth in the middle years to create longer learning blocks, fewer assessment tasks, and more time for feedback.

A school whose strategy centres on inclusion or student agency may redesign curriculum progression so that fewer subjects carry greater conceptual load, rather than layering new electives or programs on top of an already full timetable.

Conversely, where strategy is vague, curriculum conversations become reactive. New programs are added because they sound aligned. Scope expands year after year. Teachers feel stretched, not focused.

• What is the school’s singular strategic priority, stated in plain language?
• Which aspects of our current curriculum most directly advance that priority?
• What are we willing to stop, reduce, or defer to protect depth and coherence?
• Where are we adding curriculum content to compensate for strategic ambiguity?
• If the strategy were re-tested tomorrow, which curriculum decisions would remain sound?

Curriculum as Translation, Not Interpretation

When strategy is sound, the curriculum does not need to interpret what the school stands for. It is asked to translate it.

Educators should not have to infer strategic intent through hints, themes, or slogans. They should be able to see clearly how curriculum priorities flow from the school’s singular strategic focus.

This is also where leadership maturity matters. In fast-moving or complex contexts, curriculum planning does not become more fragmented. The strategy is retested more frequently, and the curriculum is adjusted accordingly. The sequence holds, even when the direction needs recalibration.

When strategy is clear, curriculum design gains coherence. When the strategy is vague, the curriculum becomes overloaded.

The Distinction That Matters

Schools are already very good at curriculum discipline.

The challenge is upstream.

When strategy is weak, the curriculum is asked to carry the weight of direction-setting. When strategy is strong, curriculum becomes the vehicle through which strategy is realised.

That is the difference between planning activity and strategic intent.