I consider myself the keeper of our school's vision and mission. It is my job to help develop and implement these things. As important, it is my job to make sure that everything we do is driven by this vision and mission and is supported by them. Accreditation through the New England Association of Schools and Colleges requires that we have a "living" mission statement and measureable academic, civic, and social expectations for student learning. This mission and these expectations were developed by various stakeholders and are the center of all we do.
I mention all of this because as our literacy team continues to develop our literacy vision, it will need to keep our larger mission in mind. The literacy vision must be in line with this larger document.
Also, I want to make two other points about developing a literacy vision and the reading. First, I really appreciated the two cases presented in the text. They were great examples of "successful," literate people whose literacies developed under very different circumstances. This is in line with Ruby Payne's work on poverty which shows that typical school values are middle-class values; students from lower and upper socioeconomic classes cannot always relate to what we ask them to do! I hope to use these cases in my work with the literacy team to show them that there are multiple views of literacy even in a school as homogeneous as ours.
Second, I appreciate the level of stakeholder involvement that the authors suggest for vision development, but it would take forever! I think that if the literacy team represents all cohort groups than they can be empowered to make some decisions. Otherwise, it will take a year just to develop the vision.
I am also thinking about the balance between involving all stakeholders and moving forward. Our vision statement for literacy was actually written exclusively by our principal and then presented to the literacy team which included three literacy teachers, two Title I teachers, and our assistant principal. We spent an afternoon retreat dissecting and revising the statements which included a general statement expecting 95% of our students to meet literacy benchmarks by 2014 and then fourteen bulleted statements of beliefs that directly addressed many of our concerns about the “second system” that Allington discusses.
This really has been a literacy plan created in a vacuum, albeit in one of the brightest “vacuums” I know. So where we go from here remains to be seen. It seems to me that because it is not yet a shared vision, those of us in “leadership” positions are leading by proxy, not always sure of next steps or whether we have the authority to make any decisions. I do not yet feel the synergy or have the clarity needed to build upon my administrator’s work and there isn’t a place for dissension here. I use the word, “yet”, because I am not closed to the idea that I’m just a little “slow” and will catch up to this fast moving school.
The irony is that the vision statement created is really very bold and having written quite a few vision statements in other schools, it always seems they become more and more innocuous and meaningless as the group revises until you are left with a statement of generalities that maintains the status quo. So how do you put together a group of stakeholders who dare to be different?
Finally, Shawn’s reference to Ruby Payne’s work is pertinent to my school setting, where there are significant differences in values and how families relate to school. Until we begin to involve parents in more meaningful ways and in real decision-making, it just doesn’t seem likely that parents’ or childrens’ needs will be met.
First, Shawn's statement about how long and how much it would take to really get all the stakeholders in a room and hammering out a vision resontated with me. Of course, even this 'forever' task is predicated on the idea that everyone can agree that literacy is THE issue to focus on - the place to rest the 'weight of the foot'. Against basic safety, athletic pursuits or admissions trouble, even that first step of setting the focus could take a long time. Jill makes a good point about the potential banality of a vision statement written by committee. I am fond of a saying, "A camel is a horse designed by committee." So then is there a trade off in the process of collaboration? Gosh, I feel as though each time i post i focus of the obstacles. such is my nature. I suppose then that i will need to secure an energetic optomist for my literacy team! As for my own thoughts while reading, I am thankful that my school has a very clear and strong beleif that easily forms the basis for a literacy vision statement. The direction of change will be a large shift and therefore a bit scarey. As for how a vision statement might motivate or coordinate action, I agian go back to the idea that all of Vogt's work seems to miss the need for a single leader. Her writing seem to rely too much on the words written down by the 'we', and while there is no I in TEAM, my experience shows that you need a visionary who can get people around his or her idea. I was reading TIME's July or August piece on Nelson Mandela and the 8 lesson on leadership he has to share. He noted that a leader must be able to lead from the front and the back. He recalled meetings in which he listened to many views, then began to talk to shape the big ideas - blending his ideas and theirs - then he moved people to see as he did and made people feel as if it was their idea all along. Vogt is perhaps too egalitarian.
I tend to break out in hives whenever I read books or chapters of books about mission and vision statements. In part, this is because I think that so often beliefs are shaped by action, not the other way around. In that sense, putting the vision/mission first means that the beliefs must be in place before any action is taken, and I am not sure that's the way people learn.
The second reason for my hesitancy flows from my experience about such statements. As Kirstie and Jill say, those statements so often end up saying not much in long, abstract words.
Having said that, I can do visions and missions. Shawn's comments about NEASC-mandated living visions resonates with me, because we had to go through the process of mission development not too many years ago.
The part of our mission statement that connects to my literacy interest is the part that says that "All students will learn to...read well and reflectively." In truth, we have delayed tackling what we meant by that when we said it, and now we need to do that work. NEASC has been patient with us as we move towards defining this expectation.
As I reflect on what I just said, however, I recognize that other parts of our academic expectations also fall under the "literacy" umbrella of these authors. Specifically, our mission also calls for students to develop writing, presentation, and research skills.
The authors' wide interpretation of the term "literacy" worries me. To the extent we get away from the term's core meaning--which, to me, is about reading--we risk the lack of focus that comes from mushiness. I value writing highly, but my experience is that writing skills can be developed pretty effectively without much of an impact on reading. My gut feeling is to interpret our literacy program to focus on reading. What do others think?
4 comments:
I consider myself the keeper of our school's vision and mission. It is my job to help develop and implement these things. As important, it is my job to make sure that everything we do is driven by this vision and mission and is supported by them. Accreditation through the New England Association of Schools and Colleges requires that we have a "living" mission statement and measureable academic, civic, and social expectations for student learning. This mission and these expectations were developed by various stakeholders and are the center of all we do.
I mention all of this because as our literacy team continues to develop our literacy vision, it will need to keep our larger mission in mind. The literacy vision must be in line with this larger document.
Also, I want to make two other points about developing a literacy vision and the reading. First, I really appreciated the two cases presented in the text. They were great examples of "successful," literate people whose literacies developed under very different circumstances. This is in line with Ruby Payne's work on poverty which shows that typical school values are middle-class values; students from lower and upper socioeconomic classes cannot always relate to what we ask them to do! I hope to use these cases in my work with the literacy team to show them that there are multiple views of literacy even in a school as homogeneous as ours.
Second, I appreciate the level of stakeholder involvement that the authors suggest for vision development, but it would take forever! I think that if the literacy team represents all cohort groups than they can be empowered to make some decisions. Otherwise, it will take a year just to develop the vision.
I am also thinking about the balance between involving all stakeholders and moving forward. Our vision statement for literacy was actually written exclusively by our principal and then presented to the literacy team which included three literacy teachers, two Title I teachers, and our assistant principal. We spent an afternoon retreat dissecting and revising the statements which included a general statement expecting 95% of our students to meet literacy benchmarks by 2014 and then fourteen bulleted statements of beliefs that directly addressed many of our concerns about the “second system” that Allington discusses.
This really has been a literacy plan created in a vacuum, albeit in one of the brightest “vacuums” I know. So where we go from here remains to be seen. It seems to me that because it is not yet a shared vision, those of us in “leadership” positions are leading by proxy, not always sure of next steps or whether we have the authority to make any decisions. I do not yet feel the synergy or have the clarity needed to build upon my administrator’s work and there isn’t a place for dissension here. I use the word, “yet”, because I am not closed to the idea that I’m just a little “slow” and will catch up to this fast moving school.
The irony is that the vision statement created is really very bold and having written quite a few vision statements in other schools, it always seems they become more and more innocuous and meaningless as the group revises until you are left with a statement of generalities that maintains the status quo. So how do you put together a group of stakeholders who dare to be different?
Finally, Shawn’s reference to Ruby Payne’s work is pertinent to my school setting, where there are significant differences in values and how families relate to school. Until we begin to involve parents in more meaningful ways and in real decision-making, it just doesn’t seem likely that parents’ or childrens’ needs will be met.
First, Shawn's statement about how long and how much it would take to really get all the stakeholders in a room and hammering out a vision resontated with me. Of course, even this 'forever' task is predicated on the idea that everyone can agree that literacy is THE issue to focus on - the place to rest the 'weight of the foot'. Against basic safety, athletic pursuits or admissions trouble, even that first step of setting the focus could take a long time.
Jill makes a good point about the potential banality of a vision statement written by committee. I am fond of a saying, "A camel is a horse designed by committee." So then is there a trade off in the process of collaboration?
Gosh, I feel as though each time i post i focus of the obstacles. such is my nature. I suppose then that i will need to secure an energetic optomist for my literacy team!
As for my own thoughts while reading, I am thankful that my school has a very clear and strong beleif that easily forms the basis for a literacy vision statement. The direction of change will be a large shift and therefore a bit scarey. As for how a vision statement might motivate or coordinate action, I agian go back to the idea that all of Vogt's work seems to miss the need for a single leader. Her writing seem to rely too much on the words written down by the 'we', and while there is no I in TEAM, my experience shows that you need a visionary who can get people around his or her idea.
I was reading TIME's July or August piece on Nelson Mandela and the 8 lesson on leadership he has to share. He noted that a leader must be able to lead from the front and the back. He recalled meetings in which he listened to many views, then began to talk to shape the big ideas - blending his ideas and theirs - then he moved people to see as he did and made people feel as if it was their idea all along. Vogt is perhaps too egalitarian.
I tend to break out in hives whenever I read books or chapters of books about mission and vision statements. In part, this is because I think that so often beliefs are shaped by action, not the other way around. In that sense, putting the vision/mission first means that the beliefs must be in place before any action is taken, and I am not sure that's the way people learn.
The second reason for my hesitancy flows from my experience about such statements. As Kirstie and Jill say, those statements so often end up saying not much in long, abstract words.
Having said that, I can do visions and missions. Shawn's comments about NEASC-mandated living visions resonates with me, because we had to go through the process of mission development not too many years ago.
The part of our mission statement that connects to my literacy interest is the part that says that "All students will learn to...read well and reflectively." In truth, we have delayed tackling what we meant by that when we said it, and now we need to do that work. NEASC has been patient with us as we move towards defining this expectation.
As I reflect on what I just said, however, I recognize that other parts of our academic expectations also fall under the "literacy" umbrella of these authors. Specifically, our mission also calls for students to develop writing, presentation, and research skills.
The authors' wide interpretation of the term "literacy" worries me. To the extent we get away from the term's core meaning--which, to me, is about reading--we risk the lack of focus that comes from mushiness. I value writing highly, but my experience is that writing skills can be developed pretty effectively without much of an impact on reading. My gut feeling is to interpret our literacy program to focus on reading. What do others think?
Post a Comment