they need to represent the learning priorities identified in the portrait of the graduate or other such statements.
Some mission-related educational outcomes fall within traditional subject areas (disciplinary), while others cut across disciplines (transdisciplinary). In general, we expect to find disciplinary outcomes rooted in the mission statements of subject-based departments (for example, in mathematics or visual art), while district- and school-level missions typically identify transdisciplinary outcomes, such as 21st century skills and dispositions. Here are a few examples of such mission statements for a district or school as well some as for discipline areas.
The mission of GHI School is to develop learners who are independently able to:
The mission of the mathematics department is to develop learners who are independently able to:
The mission of the history department is to develop learners who are independently able to:
Table 1.2 shows examples of both types of mission-based outcomes.
Table 1.2: Two Types of Mission-Based Outcomes
| Disciplinary Outcomes | Transdisciplinary Outcomes |
| Effective writer | Critical thinker |
| Mathematical reasoner | Effective collaborator |
| Creative artist | Self-directed learner |
Although we advocate framing the mission of a district, school, or department (or program) in terms of student learning outcomes, there is often a need to define and describe these outcomes, especially those that are transdisciplinary in nature. West Windsor-Plainsboro Township District, a public school district located in northern New Jersey, engaged in a unique and effective process for clarifying its four transdisciplinary outcomes by declaring the following characteristics in its district’s mission: (1) self-directed learner, (2) responsible and involved student and citizen, (3) creative and practical problem solver, (4) and effective team member (M. Wise, personal communication, 2012).
The distric started with an end-of-the-school-year faculty meeting (to plan for the upcoming year) in which teachers were seated in heterogeneous groups of mixed subjects and grade levels (five to six people per group) and asked to brainstorm performance indicators for one of the four transdisciplinary outcomes. Each group recorded its initial list on chart paper and posted the large sheets on the walls of the meeting room. Then, the entire staff participated in a gallery walk to view the lists of other groups and used sticky notes to propose edits to the draft lists. Predictably, the gallery walk generated rich professional conversations among the faculty members.
Following the ninety-minute meeting, a designee typed up the lists and proposed edits for a committee representing various roles (administrators and teachers of various grades and subjects) to synthesize. Later in the summer, a school administrator emailed the draft lists of indicators for the four transdisciplinary outcomes to the staff with an invitation to review the document, propose any final edits, and return their comments by a designated date in August. When the faculty returned for the start of the school year, the committee distributed the final set of staff-generated performance indicators at a meeting, along with the directions for next steps.
Next came the innovative step of the process—each homeroom teacher in the secondary schools engaged his or her students in the same exercise that the faculty undertook! Over four days during the homeroom periods, teachers led their students through the process of considering how a person would demonstrate each of the four transdisciplinary outcomes through their actions and behaviors. Students worked in small groups to brainstorm indicators. They then shared, discussed, and synthesized these. (Teachers did not show students the faculty lists of indicators since one of the goals was to have students think deeply about each outcome and not just repeat indicators from the adults’ lists.) Finally, the committee created a composite list that reflected a synthesis of the ideas and language of both teachers and students. Figure 1.6 (page 30) lists an example of these results based on the transdisciplinary outcome of a self-directed learner.
Figure 1.6: Faculty- and student-generated lists of performance indicators.
The benefits of this process should be evident—all school community members, students, and staff have a clear and agreed-on set of valued outcomes and associated indicators. Even if students are not involved, the process of operationally defining outcomes and identifying performance indicators still brings a mission to life. The resulting lists of indicators serve as targets for teaching and learning, parameters for teachers’ assessments, and guides for students’ self-assessment of their growth in these important capacities. We explore this idea in greater detail in chapters 3 and 4.
Notes From the Field
Mission statements often derive from a collaborative writing session that focuses on how they read and whether they sound powerful. But missions are not mottos; they are the organization’s reason for being, and they clarify how it will set out to achieve those goals.
When writing a mission statement, we suggest avoiding flowery and inert language that evidence cannot observe or support. It is nice to say that your organization wants to “empower all students,” but what does that mean, and how will you know it has achieved success? We encourage the districts and
