For any enterprise to succeed, it has to take actions that will move it toward its goal. Perhaps more importantly, it has to say no to actions that won’t do that.
This means it has to articulate a goal in a simple, straightforward way so that whenever it is contemplating a possible action, it can ask: Will this move me closer to the goal? If so, it’s worth doing. If not, it isn’t.
That is the role of a mission statement. It’s a kind of guiding star, a way of deciding when to say yes and when to say no.
For example, this is the mission statement of Southwest Airlines: ‘To be the world’s most loved, most efficient, and most profitable airline.’
Here was President Kennedy’s mission statement for the space program: ‘This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.’
Simple, but not easy. Ambitious but achievable. And very, very clear.
One of the largest enterprises in New Hampshire is its public school system. What is the mission statement for this enterprise? Unfortunately, no one seems to agree on that.
The more people you ask — legislators, judges, bureaucrats, parents, teachers, taxpayers — the more answers you get: To provide children with bright futures (college and career readiness) and pleasant presents (sports, hobbies, opportunities to socialize with friends); to create a workforce for employers (with subsidized daycare for employees); to allow us to compete in the global economy; to promote tolerance and inclusivity, and so on.
But the public school system does have a mission statement of sorts, at least on paper.
The state constitution is clear in saying that education is ‘essential to preservation of a free government.’ That’s the why.
The state supreme court is clear in saying that it is the responsibility of the state to provide ‘each educable child an opportunity to acquire the knowledge and learning necessary to participate intelligently in the American political, economic, and social systems of a free government.‘ That’s the what.
The legislature has been clear in saying that ‘schools shall ensure that all pupils are performing at the proficient level or above on the statewide assessment.’ That’s the how.
That last bit is buried so deeply — in RSA 193-H:2 — that you almost have to be Indiana Jones to find it. And it recently survived an attempt to repeal it on the grounds that no one was really taking it seriously.
But what would happen if we adopted RSA 193-H:2 as the mission statement for our public school system? That is, what if New Hampshire embarked on what we might call the ‘Granhattan Project,’ a program similar to the moon landing or the development of the atomic bomb? A program attaching a real sense of urgency to a goal that is simple but not easy, ambitious but achievable, and very, very clear.
Something like: ‘This state should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of bringing 95% of students to a 12th-grade level of proficiency in reading.’
Note that in achieving this goal as a society, we would position students to achieve their own goals as individuals: To create their own bright futures. To attend college, or train for a career, or start a business. To learn more about whatever they want, whenever they want, for the rest of their lives. To be active creators, rather than passive consumers, of public discourse on subjects like tolerance and inclusivity — or taxes, public health and safety, criminal justice, welfare, or any other matter of public policy. They would be able to participate intelligently in the political, economic, and social systems of a free government. And in doing so, help preserve a free government.
But we can only do this if we have a yes that is clear enough and understood to be essential enough to let us say no when we need to. To turn away from incidentals that distract from essentials. To follow our guide star instead of veering after each new shiny bauble that appears on the horizon.
And if teaching every student to read is the wrong mission statement, let’s come up with a better one.
How might we do that? One way would be to encourage stakeholders to make lists of all the things they think schools should be doing. Compile the lists and see which items show up 95% of the time.
(It’s the same basic idea as voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame but with a higher threshold.)
The idea is to find consensus in order to avoid contentiousness, to cooperate with our limited resources instead of competing for them, to pull together in a common direction instead of pulling in a dozen directions at once. To chase just one rabbit and catch it instead of chasing a dozen and missing them all.
Zig Ziglar expressed the idea behind a mission statement this way: ‘You can’t hit a target you cannot see, and you cannot see a target you do not have.’ And even more simply: ‘If you aim at nothing, you’ll hit it every time.’
I have yet to see a more accurate description of our public school system. We can do better, and we need to do better. A great first step in that direction would be embracing RSA 193-H:2 instead of eliminating it or continuing to ignore it.
[This was originally published at the author’s blog at Bare Minimum Books.]
