within the mission and the supporting frameworks they will use to design and assess whether that learning is taking place.
Two questions that we often ask learning communities to help them avoid the pitfalls of an obscure or vague mission statement are:
1. “What does your mission statement look like?”
2. “How will you know that it is being achieved?”
When a district or school can answer these two questions with specificity, we know it has something it can act on and to which it can hold itself accountable.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we explored ways of engaging a school community in developing an informed view of the future and considering the implications for the modern learning that will prepare students for the opportunities and challenges they will encounter in their lives. We discussed ways of moving from a vision of a graduate to an actionable educational mission designed to achieve both disciplinary and transdisciplinary learning outcomes. We offered practical processes for agreeing on operational definitions and observable indicators of the outcomes we seek.
A compelling vision and mission for modern learning are necessary, but not sufficient. The sobering reality is that most districts and schools are not currently structured to achieve the modern learning outcomes that we have discussed. Existing systems need alignment with these outcomes so our staff and students can achieve them. In the next chapter, we explore two systemic frameworks for working backward from these stated outcomes to design the actions necessary to achieve them.
CHAPTER 2
From Mission to Action
How do we collaboratively plan backward from the mission to purposeful actions?
In the first chapter, we concentrated on clarifying our destination in terms of establishing a vision for the future and using that vision to determine a specific mission that identifies long-term learning outcomes—both within and across disciplines. Now it’s time to plan your journey. To support systemic planning, we recommend two interrelated and mutually supportive planning frameworks that can guide the movement from vision to mission to action: (1) Input-Output-Impact and (2) backward design.
The laser-like focus on student learning and essential student outcomes are what drew us to the I-O-I framework, as well as its alignment to the UbD framework.
—Lisa Elliot, Superintendent, School District of Greenfield
The focus of this chapter is on detailing both of these frameworks. We follow these with a sample case study that illustrates how you can apply a backward design framework toward developing and attaining an outcome focused on self-directed learning. As you read this content, bear in mind that you can utilize these frameworks at multiple organization levels, from district to school to department.
The Input-Output-Impact Framework
The I-O-I framework offers a simple but powerful mindset for focusing on the articulation of a vision and mission in terms of the important and measurable learning outcomes district or school desires for students. The I-O-I framework is essentially a way of focusing a district’s, school’s, or department’s resources and actions on the desired learning results articulated in its mission. This focus is important and often missing in school-improvement planning and implementation. Figure 2.1 presents a visual of the I-O-I framework.
Source: © 2015 by Greg Curtis. Used with permission.
Figure 2.1: The Input-Output-Impact framework.
The I-O-I framework and approach are deceptively simple, but their value lies in directing thinking and actions toward results (impacts), and not toward activities (inputs), such as training or resource allocations and curriculum revisions, or changes to report cards (outputs). In other words, it’s about facilitating intentional action to achieve learning goals rather than stopping at organizational actions.
When a school can clearly and simply articulate a set of targeted and compelling outcomes, then planning, implementing, and assessing progress take on a very different tone. Maintaining a continual focus on meaningful results helps sustain a district or school through the long and sometimes difficult journey toward the realization of its vision and the delivery of its mission. Shining a relentless spotlight on achieving learning outcomes through concrete evidence of success at achieving the mission, as opposed to focusing just on organizational inputs and outputs, changes how it acts on traditional strategic planning and measures of success. Thus, as a guide and as a strategic evaluation scaffold, the I-O-I framework enables educators to move from aspirational to intentional.
Maintaining an I-O-I framework can:
• Help make the vision and mission focused on students’ learning and make them concerned with true transformation of individual learners
• Create a common understanding of central goals for learning, which is key to engaging the community and sustaining support for systemic work
• Ensure that a district’s or school’s definition of success is anchored in student-learning outcomes based on its mission
• Drive change backward, through various teaching and assessment practices throughout the school, from desired impacts to actions in service of targeted outcomes
• Align actions and processes across the district, school, or department
• Keep the focus an ongoing inquiry into student learning as evidence of the achievement of mission-based outcomes
Although it may seem self-evident, the framework can be tricky to apply with fidelity, since its use often challenges comfortable habits and familiar ways of operating. We will be revisiting the I-O-I framework throughout this book, and we hope you will see how it can support positive change across your organization.
Table 2.1 (page 36) provides definitions, critical questions, and examples for each phase of the I-O-I framework in relation to service learning.
As you may notice, inputs and outputs mostly represent school and educator action and the products of those actions. However, evidence of achievement of impacts will come from students and ties directly to the processes and products of their learning.
With this understanding, we turn our attention to using a complementary process—backward design—to plan and initiate a systemic plan for moving from mission to action.
Backward Design
Backward design is a process to help you plan with the end in mind by clarifying your ideal result before trying to reach it. Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005, 2012) popularized the concept of backward design in their book Understanding by Design, in which they propose a three-stage process for the backward design of curriculum. Familiarizing yourself with backward design regarding curriculum development will help you better understand how to apply it to any education initiative. We explore using backward design for
