MD3 DISCCUSION 2

Mission, vision, values, and goals: An exploration of key organizational statements and daily practice in schools

D. Keith Gurley • Gary B. Peters • Loucrecia Collins •

Matthew Fifolt

Published online: 26 February 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract This article reports findings from a study of graduate level, educational

leadership students’ familiarity with shared mission, vision, values, and goals

statements and the perceived impact these concepts have on their practice as leaders

and teachers in schools. The study is primarily qualitative and uses content analysis

of responses to open-ended questions. Researchers adopted a limited quantitative

analysis technique, however, in order to report frequency of responses to survey

questions. We used the literature base regarding strategic planning and school

improvement as conceptual frameworks to guide the analysis. Findings revealed that

educational leadership students had limited ability to recall the content of key

organizational statements. Further, respondents reported that these key organiza-

tional statements had only minimal impact on their daily practice. Implications are

presented for university preparation programs designed to equip school leaders to

effect meaningful school improvement and organizational change centered on

D. K. Gurley (&)

Department of Human Studies, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 210B Education Building,

901 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

G. B. Peters

Department of Human Studies, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 203 Education Building,

901 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

L. Collins

Department of Human Studies, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 223 Education Building,

901 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

M. Fifolt

Center for the Study of Community Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 112 912

Building, 912 18th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

DOI 10.1007/s10833-014-9229-x

development of shared mission and vision for improvement. This research confirms

similar findings reported by Watkins and McCaw (Natl Forum Educ Adm Superv J

24(3):71–91, 2007) and adds to the research by exploring respondents’ reports of the

impact of mission, vision, values, and goals statements on their daily practice. It

further extends the discussion by presenting a content analysis of key organizational

statements, comparing mission, vision, values, and goals statements to models of

strategic planning and planning for continuous school improvement from the

organizational improvement literature.

Keywords Goal-setting � Organizational change � Organizational values � School culture � School improvement � Shared mission � Shared vision

Introduction

Articulating and nurturing widely shared ownership and commitment to purpose in

organizations (i.e., mission, vision, values, and goals) has long been identified as

essential to effective, strategic planning for organizational improvement (Bryson

2004; Kaufman 1992; Mintzberg 1994). Bryson (2004) stated, ‘‘Clarifying purpose

can eliminate a great deal of unnecessary conflict in an organization and can channel

discussion and activity productively’’ (p. 38). Unity of purpose, or mission, within

an organization provides a means by which organizational members can work

together toward a common set of objectives.

The purpose of the research presented in this article was to explore how familiar

graduate students, enrolled in educational leadership programs at a southeastern US

university, were with the mission, vision, values, and goals statements in their

schools. We also explored the perceived level of impact that these statements had on

educational leadership students’ daily, professional practice. The article concludes

with a discussion of the findings as well as some implications for university

preparation programs designed to equip future school leaders to effect meaningful,

organizational change in their schools.

Background

While discussion of strategic planning finds its roots in business management

contexts, much of what has been presented within this literature has migrated into

the research and discussion regarding school improvement models over the last two

decades (Quong et al. 1998). Development of a clear school mission, shared vision,

articulated values, and specific goal statements has also been applied more

specifically to the fundamental processes of school improvement focused on

increased levels of learning for all students (DuFour and Eaker 1998; DuFour et al.

2008; Perkins 1992; Renchler 1991; Teddlie and Reynolds 2000; Wiggins and

McTighe 2007). Yet, despite a longstanding and consistent admonition in the

literature regarding the purpose and power in developing these foundational

218 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

statements, the practice of clearly articulating such statements continues to be

effectively ignored by many school leaders (DuFour et al. 2008; Watkins and

McCaw 2007). In an insightful piece on vision-guided schools, Pekarsky (2007)

stated, ‘‘… thoughtful, systematic attention to larger questions of purpose is rarely at

the heart of American social and educational discourse’’ (p. 424).

The current authors contend that, among school leaders, there exists a lack of

understanding of exactly what mission, vision, values, and goals statements are and

the value such foundational statements offer to the development of shared

commitment among stakeholders to the process of school improvement. Citing

evidence from a recent survey of our graduate-level educational leadership students,

we point to the presence of an implied disconnect between the widely established,

best practice in the first steps of school improvement (i.e., development of key

organizational mission, vision, values, and goals statements) and the daily,

professional practice of educational leaders charged with demonstrating continuous

improvement in school achievement and student learning.

In the first section of the article, we provide clear definitions of the terms and

then research-based evidence for the value of school mission, vision, values, and

goals statements. Next, we describe findings from the research conducted in an

educational leadership program at a university in the southeastern United States. We

conclude the article by presenting a discussion of the findings as well as some

implications for further research into the topic. The article begins with a description

of the two key conceptual frameworks adopted to guide the research, i.e., strategic

planning and continuous school improvement. We based the content analysis of

mission, vision, values, and goals statements recalled by our students on the models

of strategic planning and continuous school improvement.

Conceptual frameworks

The research project was guided by two frames of thought regarding organizational

and school change. The first of these frameworks is strategic planning, developed by

authors and researchers primarily outside the field of education. The second

framework, that is continuous school improvement, stems from the strategic

planning literature, but applies its concepts specifically to the process of increasing

the capacity of schools to effect high levels of learning for students and adults in a

school context. Discussion of continuous school improvement comprises a broad

framework developed by a wide variety of school improvement experts. Strategic

planning and continuous school improvement frameworks are described in more

detail in the section that follows.

Strategic planning

We first adopted a conceptual framework of strategic planning to guide the project.

Strategic planning finds its roots in the work of Lewin (1943) on organizational

change (Burnes 2004). Lewin described three stages of organizational change

claiming that, in order to solidify meaningful change within an organization,

organizational members must first unfreeze or become aware that the current

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 219

123

mindset within the organization must change in order to meet new demands from

the external environment. Next, organizational members, now aware of the need for

change, actually experience a state of confusion or become unsettled as they recreate

and redefine the new norms for the organization. Finally, once new norms and

expectations have been defined, the organization experiences a state of freezing in

which they establish, commit to, and become comfortable again with the new set of

organizational norms, goals, and expectations (Lewin 1943).

Based upon an extensive knowledge of historical literature on planning in

American and European corporations, Mintzberg (1994) sought to define the elusive

construct of strategic planning. Mintzberg asserted that planning has been conceived

of historically as merely ‘‘future thinking’’ by many planning experts, while others

define planning as actually ‘‘controlling the future’’ (p. 7). Finally, Mintzberg

asserted the possibility that planning is simply a process of ‘‘decision making’’ (p.

9). In an effort to define strategic planning, Mintzberg clearly pointed to the

complex nature of the process and the need for organizational actors to define what

it is they mean by ‘‘strategic planning’’ and how that process will be fleshed out in

the organization. Other strategic planning experts have focused specifically on

aspects of organizational change in the nonprofit sector, including the second phase

described by Lewin (1943), wherein organizational leaders and members focus on

developing a new set of organizational norms and commitments in order to enable

the change process (Bardwell 2008; Crittenden and Crittenden 1997; Moore 2000).

Describing a successful strategic planning process in their nonprofit organization,

McHatton et al. (2011) stated, ‘‘…strategic planning has been shown to be beneficial

in gaining stakeholder consensus for organizational objectives and future action’’ (p.

235).

In this second stage of strategic planning described by Lewin (1943), confusion,

members engage in a process of developing organizational purpose statements

intended to guide the change process. Purpose statements include statements of

mission, vision, values, and goals, and become the cornerstones upon which

organizational change is built (Bardwell 2008; Crittenden and Crittenden 1997;

Moore 2000). McHatton et al. (2011) identified common elements of effective

strategic planning emergent from the literature and from their own experience,

including the development of clear mission and vision statements, a commitment to

organizational values (e.g., leadership, collaboration), and development of a

systematic way to monitor progress toward organizational goals.

School improvement

Out of this dialogue of strategic planning for organizations in general stems the

discussion of organizational improvement specifically for schools. Researchers for

the current study adopted this conceptual framework of school improvement to

further guide data analysis and reflection.

In the seminal work on the problem of change in US schools, Sarason (1971)

clearly explicated many problems that school leaders often encounter in their efforts

to effect meaningful, modal change in educational settings. Among these problems

was an insufficient understanding of the context of schools and the regularities, or

220 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

common practices of school personnel. Without a thorough understanding of these

regularities, change agents have traditionally found it difficult, if not impossible, to

implement and sustain desired changes in schools.

Rooted in the work of Sarason (1971); Fullan (1993, 1998, 1999) extended the

discussion of the complexity of the change process in school improvement. Fullan

observed that schools are not only complex organizations, but operate in constantly

changing, fluid contexts. School improvement leaders are challenged, at best, to introduce

and support change efforts within organizations that experience ongoing, dynamic

external and internal change forces, most of which may be hidden and unexpected.

Fullan (1993) explained that, while developing a shared vision among school

personnel is essential, it is important that this vision remain fluid, especially at the

point of introduction of substantial change in a school. Fullan recommended that

school improvement leaders remain open to reflection within and about the

organization in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the context

before establishing an organizational vision. Fullan wrote, ‘‘Under conditions of

dynamic complexity, one needs a good deal of reflective experience before one can

form a plausible vision’’ (p. 28).

Many other authors have contributed to the school improvement knowledge base

over the last two decades, offering a wealth of research-based practices in school

leadership, change agency, instruction, curriculum development, and organizational

planning (Danielson 2007; DuFour et al. 2008; Marzano et al. 2005; Reeves 2000).

In presenting an increasingly popular model of school improvement, professional

learning communities (PLC), DuFour and Eaker (1998) identified the articulation,

implementation, and stewardship of mission, vision, values, and goals statements as

fundamental building blocks to effective school improvement. For the current study,

researchers adopted the PLC guiding framework due to the more extensive

articulation of the definitions of these foundational, organizational statements.

These definitions are explained more clearly in the following section.

Review of literature

Although strategic planning and school improvement literature bases are replete,

even saturated, with discussion about organizational mission, vision, values, and

goals, there remains a widespread misunderstanding of exactly what each of these

terms means, as well as an apparent lack of understanding of the value of establishing

such statements to the process of school improvement (DuFour et al. 2008; Watkins

and McCaw 2007). It is imperative, then, that we carefully define each term and

provide background regarding how well-articulated, foundational terms can

contribute to the evolution and improvement of organizations and schools.

Defining a mission statement

Often in leadership discourse, a mission statement is used synonymously and

interchangeably with the vision statement of an organization. However, the two

statements are distinct from one another (DuFour et al. 2008). A mission statement

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 221

123

is, most simply, a statement of why an organization exists, a statement of its

fundamental purpose. In the context of continuous school improvement, DuFour and

Eaker (1998) described a mission statement as ‘‘stating the business of our

business’’ and answering the question, ‘‘Why do we exist?’’ (p. 58). Lunenberg

(2010) argued that leading an ongoing, community-wide discussion about the

purpose of the organization’s existence is essential to the function of school

leadership and to the process of building unity and shared commitment to the work

to be done in an educational organization.

Stemler et al. (2011) conducted a comprehensive content analysis of high school

mission statements from a sample of schools from ten states across the United States.

These authors noted that, despite the presence of an allegedly unifying school mission

statement, the reasons that stakeholders assign for a school’s existence may vary

widely from school to school, and even among stakeholders within the same school.

For example, faculty and other community members may perceive the mission of a

school as ranging from preparing students to function as mature civic, emotional,

cognitive, and social adults to preparing students to assume vocational functions,

physically healthy habits, and even local and global integration (Stemler et al. 2011).

Stemler et al. (2011) argued that, while each of the perceivedmissions or purposes of

schooling are indeed important and laudable, the fact that such a wide variety of

individually held or perceived purposes for schooling exists, even among faculty

members operating within the same school unit, results in a lack of unity of mission and

shared effort toward a common set of objectives. This lack of unity in defining a shared

mission may result in a breakdown of mutual understanding of the primary purpose for

the school’s existence and eventually lead to fragmentation of effort among

organizational actors. The purpose of developing a widely shared organizational

mission, therefore, is not conducted to limit other, important functions of schools, but

rather to focus members’ efforts in order to reach clearly articulated and specific goals

(Bryson2004;DuFour et al. 2008;Kaufman1992;Mintzberg 1994, Stemler et al. 2011).

According to Boerema (2006), the mission statement of a school actually

articulates a set of values that answer fundamental questions about the purpose of

education and how the educational program should be carried out. Boerema pointed

out that, ‘‘The school mission provides the context for governance, decision making,

and the way the school is managed’’ (p. 182). Boerema further explained that a

school mission statement provides key direction to those individuals performing the

core technology of a school, namely teaching and learning.

The process of articulating a clear and concise mission statement is imperative in

order to solidify a shared understanding of what the primary work of the school

actually is. Without careful examination, discussion, articulation, and clarification

of the school mission, educational professionals who work together closely on a

daily basis may interpret their purpose very differently, each assuming a different

reason for why they do the work that they do.

Defining a vision statement

A vision statement is qualitatively different from a mission statement. A vision

statement is an articulation not of purpose, but of a preferred future for the

222 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

organization. According to DuFour and Eaker (1998), a vision statement answers

the question, ‘‘What do we hope to become?’’ (p. 62).

A vision statement provides stakeholders with a picture of what their ideal school

and students will look like if educators are successful in working together to achieve

that vision. Though a vision statement should be clear and meaningful to all

stakeholders, effective vision statements are concise and provide lofty, yet

measureable, language so that school personnel know when the vision has been

achieved or when it should be adjusted to better meet the needs of the organization

(Pekarsky 2007).

Pekarsky (2007) stated that a vision statement is far more than a mere slogan. A

vision statement enables school community members to assume a desired state of

heart and mind with which to carry out their daily functions in the school.

Stakeholders in a vision-guided organization, through the function of a clearly

articulated and supported vision statement, are explicit about where they are headed,

what they are about, and how they will know when they have arrived.

Kose (2011) stated that a shared, articulated vision is characteristic of effective

schools, is a vehicle for building more inclusive and equitable schools, and can

influence positive change in school improvement efforts, hiring, evaluation,

professional development, and other key school functions. According to Kose,

principals can use a well-crafted and supported vision statement to effect powerful

change in the school on many different levels.

Defining values statements

Perhaps the least understood and under-implemented of the four foundational

statements is the statement of core values. As the name suggests, core values

statements articulate the shared beliefs of an organization. Again, DuFour and Eaker

(1998) claimed that core values statements answer the question, ‘‘How must we

behave in order to make our shared vision a reality?’’ (p. 88).

In describing their work with business organizations, Blanchard and O’Connor

(1997) argued that, ‘‘When aligned around shared values and united in a common

purpose, ordinary people accomplish extraordinary results and give their organi-

zation a competitive edge’’ (p. 144). Though their work and research was conducted

in a profit-driven context, key concepts may arguably be applied to non-profit

organizations, as well. Blanchard and O’Connor wrote of the importance for

contemporary organizations to adopt key values, such as honesty, fairness, and

integrity, in order to survive in the current economy.

Blanchard and O’Connor (1997) further contended that organizations, centered

on powerful, shared values, report better service to their clientele, higher profits, and

a higher quality of working environments for their employees. The authors stated

that it is these shared values that act as the primary authority within an organization,

the authority to which all organizational members answer.

In order for statements of organizational values or belief statements to be

effective and meaningful to a school community, however, they must be translated

from esoteric statements of stakeholder beliefs into clear and succinct statements of

observable behaviors. In other words, statements of core values do not merely

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 223

123

answer the question, ‘‘What do we believe?’’ but also address the question, ‘‘Based

upon our core beliefs, how will we behave within our organization in order to

achieve our vision?’’

For example, if a school community identifies a core value of safety for its

school, it is not enough merely to state, ‘‘We believe our school should be safe.’’

Instead, the value becomes much more realistic and observable when a statement of

safety as a value is translated into behavioral statements such as, ‘‘Because we value

keeping our community safe, we will each assume responsibility to keep school

doors locked at all times.’’ Or, ‘‘Because we value safety for all staff and students,

we will each approach and greet strangers to our building and offer our assistance.’’

Such behavioral statements, added to a stem statement of a basic value, makes the

core values statements come alive within the organization and allows leaders to

observe when and if the espoused core values are actually at work or if they are,

rather, mere words on a document.

Calder (2011) extended the understanding of the importance of values statements

by claiming that values statements provide an important foundational pillar for how

business is to be conducted. Calder wrote, ‘‘Values shape much of the work

processes and, as such, influence how an institution moves forward in a positive

way’’ (p. 24).

Defining goals statements

Perhaps the most clearly understood of the four terms is the statement of goals. In a

goal statement, educators spell out precisely what level of performance is to be

achieved in the selected domain (e.g., student learning, professional development)

and what steps are to be taken, by whom, in order to achieve the goal. Clearly, in

this era of increased accountability for student learning and professional practice,

setting clear, measurable performance goals has become common practice for

school leaders and other school personnel. DuFour and Eaker (1998) stated that

statements of learning goals address the question, ‘‘Which steps will we take first,

and when?’’ (p. 100).

A widespread trend across the United States in school improvement efforts,

especially in light of increased accountability, is the development of organizational

goals that are Strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results-oriented, and Time-bound

or SMART goals (O’Neill 2000). The connection between effective goal setting and

student achievement has been clearly established among researchers (Moeller et al.

2012).

Summary of literature review

A clear definition of the meaning of each of the four foundational statements

(mission, vision, values, goals) is imperative for members of the organization,

especially leaders, to understand the purpose of statement development. Further-

more, a deep understanding of the value of each type of statement, not merely the

development of the statement, but the organization-wide ownership and investment

in the principles asserted in the statement, is also imperative if school leaders are to

224 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

make important and significant progress toward school improvement. In other

words, the purpose and value of developing foundational mission, vision, values,

and goals with stakeholders within an organization is not merely to have done so,

and to check these tasks off of the ‘‘to do’’ lists. Rather, the purpose of developing

these statements is to bring organizational stakeholders together to share in a

common understanding of and commitment to the school’s purpose, preferred

future, behavioral expectations, and next steps toward school improvement and

increased levels of student learning.

Methodology

We used a primarily qualitative methodology (i.e., content analysis) in order to

explore the level of familiarity educational leadership students had with their

school’s mission, vision, values, and goals statements and the level to which the

statements impacted their daily practice. We also, however, employed the use of a

quantitative technique in reporting the frequency of responses to survey questions.

While not strictly a replication of research, the project described here follows-up on

and extends research conducted by Watkins and McCaw (2007).

Reporting findings from a similarly designed study, Watkins and McCaw (2007)

discovered a lack of ability by their educational leadership students to articulate

their own school or district mission, vision, and values statements. These authors

discovered that the mission, vision, and values statements that their students recalled

were largely not aligned between school and district levels and that only a small

percentage of recalled statements (8–15 %) were reflective of identified criteria for

what the content of vision, mission, and values statements should reflect.

We patterned the current investigation after the Watkins and McCaw (2007)

study by surveying our current educational leadership students, asking them to recall

key organizational statements. We also followed the Watkins and McCaw design by

conducting a content analysis of the actual statements that respondents could recall.

Our study departs from the Watkins and McCaw study in that we added students’

ability to recall school goals statements to the survey. Further, at the suggestion of

Watkins and McCaw, we explored our students’ perception of impact that school

mission, vision, values, and goals statements had on their daily practice as

professional educators.

Study sample

The individuals who comprised the convenience sample for this study were enrolled

in one of three graduate-level, educational leadership preparation programs at a

university in the southeastern part of the United States during the fall of 2012. All

participants were employed as teachers, principals, or central office administrators

in schools within the university service area and were enrolled in either an

educational master’s, educational specialist, or doctoral program at the university.

Educational leadership students were selected to participate in the research based on

their experience working in schools and on their demonstrated interest in the study

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 225

123

of school leadership evidenced by their enrollment in an educational leadership

program. Based on students’ professional pursuits, we assumed that educational

leadership students would be familiar with any guiding mission, vision, values, and

goals statements in their schools.

Survey development and administration

The survey, developed by the researchers, was quite simple and straightforward.

Using a web-based, electronic survey administered after a class session, participants

were asked to report whether or not their school had a mission statement, a vision

statement, a values statement, and a statement of school goals. Participants were

further asked to recall any or all of the words included in each of the statements and

to rate the level to which each of the statements impacted their daily practice as

teachers or school leaders (6-point, Likert-type scale).

Of the 98 students enrolled in one of the three educational leadership degree

programs, 80 students completed the survey, yielding a survey return rate of just

over 81 %. Because the survey was administered after class activities had

concluded, some potential respondents chose not to participate. The research team

did not inquire as to the reasons these individuals chose not to complete the survey.

Before administering the survey, we explained the project and provided potential

survey respondents the opportunity to either complete the survey or to opt out

without penalty. Participants were provided the opportunity to complete the survey

online or via paper-and-pencil, submitting the completed questionnaires to one of

the researchers who later entered responses, verbatim, into the survey website.

Although we asked participants to provide only a limited amount of identifying

demographic information (e.g., educational level, school level where employed,

subject taught, job title, school and district where employed) all study participants

were assured of confidentiality in data analysis and anonymity in future reporting of

the data.

Analysis of survey data

We performed simple, statistical analyses on demographic and quantitative

responses to the survey. For open-ended questions, however, we conducted a

two-phase content analysis of the response texts (Rosengren 1981). Because

mission, vision, values, and goals statements are clearly defined in strategic

planning literature, we first scanned the text of responses to collect all statements

that were related to the more general, strategic planning definitions. For example,

because mission statements are clearly identified as purpose-related statements in

general, we first analyzed the content of mission statement responses against this

standard. This part of the analysis provided insight into the scope of the statements

recalled by educational leadership students relative to their schools’ mission, vision,

values, and goals statements.

In the second phase of content analysis of open-ended responses, we used more

specific, school improvement-related definitions of mission, vision, values, and

goals statements to guide the analysis. For example, while school improvement

226 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

literature reiterates that mission statements are organizational purpose statements,

school improvement experts also assert that the primary mission of schools is to

effect high levels of learning for all students (DuFour et al. 2008). Therefore, in the

second phase of content analysis of the mission-related text responses, we took note

of the student learning-related content recalled by survey respondents. This two-

phased, content analysis approach was applied to all four sets of statement-related

responses recalled by study participants.

The research team first summarized the demographic characteristics of the survey

respondents, the reported presence (or lack thereof) of the specific statements in

their schools, and the perceived effect that the statements had of their daily work.

Next, we analyzed the content of open-ended responses asking respondents to recall

any or all of their schools’ mission, vision, values, and goals statements. We

searched for and identified themes emergent from the data from each of the sets of

statement-related responses (Creswell 2013). These themes, related first to general,

strategic planning-based definitions of the term, and then to school-improvement

related definitions are reported in the next section.

Findings

Findings from the study indicated that survey respondents reported a disparity in

whether or not their school had mission, vision, values, and goals statements.

Reports of the presence of school mission statements were clearly most prevalent.

However, reported presence of school vision and values statements is substantially

less prevalent. School goals statements are slightly more common, as might be

expected given the current environment of increased accountability resultant from

the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (United States Department of

Education 2002). Next, we present demographic characteristics of the sample as

well as the reported presence of each type of statement and the perceived effect that

each statement has on the daily practice of educational leadership students in their

school contexts. The section concludes with a presentation of the two-phased

analysis of the content that educational leadership students were able to recall on

demand, through the open-ended survey questions.

Study participants’ demographics

Study participants were fairly evenly divided among all demographic categories,

suggesting a balanced distribution of input. Regarding educational level, 37 % of

respondents were at the master’s level, 39 % at the educational specialist level, and

24 % of respondents were doctoral students. Participants were also evenly

distributed regarding the level at which they work within a K-12 educational setting

(Elementary 29 %; Middle School 23 %; and High School 29 %). Thirteen percent

of respondents were district-level school leaders. Teachers comprised 47 % of the

sample, school-level principals, assistant principals, and curriculum specialists

comprised 38 % of the sample, and district-level administrators comprised 14 % of

the sample. Among respondents who reported serving in a formal school leadership

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 227

123

role (i.e., school- and district-level leaders), 13 % were relatively new, having served

only a year or two in the role of principal or assistant principal. Thirty-six percent had

served in a formal school leadership role between 3 and 10 years, while 14 % had

served in formal school leadership roles for more than 10 years. Although we know a

large majority of the respondents to be employed in the K-12 public school

environment, we did not inquire as to the public or private status of respondents’

school contexts. The demographic characteristics of study participants we surveyed

are represented in Table 1 below.

Presence of mission, vision, values, and goals statements

The survey asked participants to indicate, ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No,’’ whether or not their

school had each of the four types of organizational statements. As expected, a vast

majority of students (94 %) reported having a mission statement in place. Only

62 % of schools, however, reported having adopted a separate vision statement.

Only 18 % of study respondents reported that their school had a statement of

organizational values. Finally, respondents reported that 42 % of schools had

written goals statements. These findings are reported in Table 2.

Perceived impact of statement on daily professional practice

Educational leadership students were asked to rate the perceived level to which each

type of statement affected their daily professional practice. For the study, impact on

professional practice was defined as the level to which respondents thought about,

referred to, and were guided by the foundational statements on a daily basis in their

individual school roles and responsibilities. Respondents indicated the perceived

Table 1 Demographic

characteristics of educational

leadership student sample

For brevity, the category of

‘‘other’’ has been eliminated,

resulting in some categories

totaling\100 %

Demographic characteristic N (%)

Level of participation in educational leadership program

Master’s 29 37

Educational specialist 31 39

Doctoral 19 24

Level of K-12 professional practice

Elementary 23 29

Middle school 18 23

High school 23 29

District level 10 13

Role in K-12 practice

Teacher 37 47

Building-level leader 30 38

District-level leader 11 14

Years in formal leadership role

1–2 Years 10 13

3–10 Years 29 36

More than 10 Years 11 14

228 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

level of impact through the use of a six-point, Likert-type scale, ranging from ‘‘1’’

No Effect, to ‘‘5’’ Maximum Effect. An option of ‘‘6’’ Does not Apply was provided

for respondents reporting an absence of that type of statement in their schools.

Findings from these questions are represented in Table 3.

Content of mission statements

In open-ended question format, educational leadership students were asked to recall

any or all of their school’s mission, vision, values, and goals statements. Clearly,

recalling the content of any organization’s mission, vision, values, and goals

statements, on demand, is a formidable task for any employee. We chose to include

this on-demand task within the survey, however, for two reasons. First, this was the

task that Watkins and McCaw (2007) assigned their own educational leadership

students in their exploration of the issue within their own university setting. We

desired to create a survey that was somewhat parallel to the Watkins and McCaw

study for purposes of comparison of results.

Second, since the survey was administered to educational leadership students, our

team sought to determine the level to which these school personnel had internalized

the mission, vision, values, and goals statements of their schools. We assumed that,

of all school employees, educational leadership students were perhaps more likely

to have internalized, and possibly even memorized, key organizational statements to

a higher level than most school personnel. In the following sections, we report

findings from a two-phased content analysis of the text from educational leadership

student responses to the open-ended questions asking them to recall any or all of the

designated statement.

Table 2 Reported presence of

mission, vision, values, and

goals statements

Statement type present (%)

Does your school have a written mission statement? 94

Does your school have a written vision statement? 62

Does your school have a written values statement? 18

Does your school have a written goals statement? 42

Table 3 Perceived effect of statement on daily professional practice, percent by level

Type of statement Effect

Little to none Some Large to maximum Does not apply

Impact of mission statement 21 29 45 6

Impact of vision statement 28 20 25 28

Impact of values statement 25 10 7 60

Impact of goals statement 26 14 23 38

For brevity, categories 1 and 2 (i.e., little to no effect) and categories 4 and 5 (i.e., large to maximum

effect) have been collapsed

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 229

123

In the first phase of analysis of mission statement text provided by 80 survey

participants, researchers examined respondent comments, collapsed similar com-

ments into a single category, and tallied the frequency of each comment or category

of comment. The goal of this phase of analysis was to compare the overall content

of mission statements provided by respondents to determine if the comments

represented the broad definition of mission statements provided in the strategic

planning literature as statements of organizational purpose.

While nearly all of the content of mission statements recalled pertained to

organizational purpose, the variety of stated purposes was very broad in scope.

During this phase of the analysis, researchers gained insight into the wide variety of

stated purposes for schools represented by educational leadership students’

responses. To that end, 144 different statements of purpose were provided by

survey respondents. These 144 individual statements collapsed into 56 different

statement categories. Statement categories ranged in frequency from 11 (7 %) of the

total number of comments down to a single, unique statement. For example, the two

most frequently mentioned statement categories of school purpose included

inclusivity of all students (11 of 144) and preparation of students for productive

citizenry (11 of 144). Our team cataloged 26 of the 144 total comments as unique

statements of purpose (i.e., only mentioned by one respondent), some of which

included such purposes as (a) meeting unique needs of students, (b) expanding

opportunities and horizons for students, (c) producing responsible students,

(d) producing respectful students, and (e) transforming students.

In the second phase of content analysis, researchers sorted the comments and

comment categories into themes in order to determine the frequency to which

student learning, high levels of learning, or student academic achievement was

mentioned as a school purpose. Researchers included this phase of the analysis for

each type of statement in an effort to compare survey results to the commonly

defined purpose of schools as producing high levels of student learning (DuFour

et al. 2008). Nine separate categories or themes emerged from the analysis of

mission statement content recalled. In Table 4, each category or theme of school

purpose is presented along with several of the most frequently mentioned examples

from respondents. The frequency that the theme was mentioned by survey

respondents is also provided.

While all themes identified in Table 4 represent laudable purposes for schools to

exist, the variety and scope of the themes mentioned is broad, ranging from

producing students who possess desirable social characteristics, to the provision of

highly qualified personnel. Only a minimal number of statements (14 of 144 or

10 %) of the content included in school mission statements mentioned were

specifically related to high levels of student learning.

Content of vision statements

Content provided by participants recalling any or all of their school’s vision

statement represented a large discrepancy in the data. While 62 % of survey

respondents indicated that their school had a vision statement, only 16 of 80

230 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

T a b le

4 T h em

at ic

st at em

en t o f sc h o o l p u rp o se , ex am

p le s, fr eq u en cy , an d p er ce n t

T h em

e an d ex am

p le s o f sc h o o l p u rp o se

st at em

en ts

f (%

)

D ev el o p m en t o f st u d en t p er so n al

ch ar ac te ri st ic s

E x am

p le s: p ro d u ct iv e ci ti ze n s, li fe -l o n g le ar n er s, re al iz ed

p o te n ti al , em

p o w er ed

st u d en ts , su cc es sf u l st u d en ts

4 8

3 3

P re p ar at io n o f st u d en ts fo r fu tu re

E x am

p le s: p re p ar in g st u d en ts fo r: g lo b al

so ci et y , ev er y fa ce t o f li fe , co ll eg e an d ca re er , te ch n o lo g ic al

w o rl d

2 5

1 7

P ro v is io n o f sa fe , o rd er ly

en v ir o n m en t

E x am

p le s: p h y si ca ll y sa fe , em

o ti o n al ly

n u rt u ri n g , o rd er ly

1 5

1 1

S tu d en t le ar n in g /a ca d em

ic ac h ie v em

en t

E x am

p le s: h el p in g st u d en ts

ac h ie v e o r ex ce l in

ac ad em

ic s, ed u ca ti n g /t ra in in g st u d en ts , le ar n in g at

h ig h le v el s

1 4

1 0

H ig h q u al it y cu rr ic u lu m

an d in st ru ct io n

E x am

p le s: p ro v id in g : re le v an t, ch al le n g in g cu rr ic u lu m ; o p p o rt u n it y to

le ar n ; ex ce ll en t te ac h in g st ra te g ie s

1 2

8

P ro v is io n o f in cl u si v e en v ir o n m en t

E x am

p le s: in cl u si v e o f al l st u d en ts , ed u ca ti n g d iv er se

p o p u la ti o n s

1 2

8

S tu d en t ac h ie v em

en t, n o n -a ca d em

ic

E x am

p le s: h el p in g st u d en ts

ac h ie v e in

cr ea ti v it y , at h le ti cs , in n o v at io n , le ad er sh ip , d ec is io n -m

ak in g

9 6

H ig h q u al it y en v ir o n m en t

E x am

p le s: p ro v id in g a q u al it y ed u ca ti o n , w o rl d -c la ss

ed u ca ti o n , p ro v id in g at m o sp h er e o f ex ce ll en ce

8 6

P ro v is io n o f h ig h q u al it y st af f

E x am

p le s: co m m it te d st af f, d ed ic at ed

st af f; ro le

m o d el s, q u al ifi ed

3 2

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 231

123

respondents (20 %) were able to recall any portion of that vision statement on

demand.

Similar to the analysis of mission statement responses, researchers first analyzed

vision statement content against the widely accepted definition of vision statements

from the strategic planning literature, specifically, that a vision statement is a future-

oriented statement or describes a preferred future state of the organization.

Researchers scanned survey responses for future-oriented language embedded in the

vision statements. Of the 16 responses provided, 11 (14 % of total possible

responses) included language that was future-oriented.

In the second phase of analysis, researchers used a model for vision statement

evaluation proposed by Kotter (1996). Kotter suggested that, in order to be

effective, the content of vision statements must clarify a general direction for the

school, must be motivational, and must help to coordinate the actions of individuals

within the organization. More specifically, Kotter (1996) explained that, in

evaluating for effectiveness, vision statements should be (a) imaginable, (b) desir-

able, (c) feasible, (d) focused, (e) flexible, and (f) communicable (p. 72).

Researchers analyzed content recalled by educational leadership students with

these criteria in mind. Of the 11 future-oriented vision statements (or portions

thereof) provided by survey respondents, researchers found that only two statements

actually appeared to meet all six criteria. For example, one of the statements that

seemed to meet or at least approach all six criteria stated:

[Our school] will develop curriculum and instructional strategies that utilize

various resources which will promote active involvement of students, provide

for their varied experiences, as well as individual abilities and talents. We will

provide monitoring of our students’ progress and offer guidance and support

services tailored to individual student needs.

We acknowledge that, while this example vision statement meets or addresses all

of Kotter’s six criteria, it may be lacking some in the second criterion, that is,

desirability. In other words, according to strategic planning and school improvement

experts, one important quality of vision statements is that they should be inspiring or

motivational to organizational members (Bryson 2004; DuFour et al. 2008; Kose

2011; Kotter 1996).Though the vision statement quoted here may not be particularly

inspiring to organizational members, it does represent the most thorough vision

statement recalled by study respondents.

Other vision statements offered by survey respondents offered what might be

perceived to be organizational slogans, including such statements as, ‘‘A tradition of

excellence,’’ and ‘‘A small system that dreams big.’’ Such slogan-like statements are

not future-oriented, nor do they include criteria for effective vision statements

(Kotter 1996).

Content of values statements

Of the 80 survey respondents, 6 (7.5 %) provided any type of values statements. In

the first phase of analysis, a number of values were identified, including statements

of commitment to: (a) diversity; (b) service to students; (c) student learning;

232 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

(d) creativity and innovation; and (e) various stakeholder groups, including parents,

students, and the community at large. One values statement was particularly

complete and included commitment statements to ten different organizational

values. This statement included all of the following values: (1) All students matter;

(2) Partnerships with parents are important; (3) Manage with data; (4) Teacher

collaboration is important to improve; (5) We must continually improve; (6) Strong

leadership is important; (7) Students must be engaged in authentic, real-world

learning; (8) Teachers must be life-long learners; (9) Students must be safe and

secure; and (10) Students must be provided extra help when needed. With the

exception of this single, yet fairly comprehensive statement, none of the values

statements recalled by educational leadership students approached the criteria for

powerful organizational values statements provided in the strategic planning

literature (Blanchard and O’Connor 1997; Calder 2011). For example, one

statement read simply, ‘‘We value creativity, diversity, and innovation.’’ Another

stated, ‘‘[Our school] values its constituents and seeks to place education for all as

its vision.’’ While these statements represent laudable values, they do not meet the

standards for specific, behavior-based values statements powerful enough to drive

an organization firmly toward its mission as described in the strategic planning

literature (Blanchard and O’Connor 1997; Bryson 2004; Kotter 1996; Moore 2000).

In the second phase of content analysis, researchers compared the values

statements to the standards of values statements presented in the school improve-

ment literature (DuFour et al. 2008). These authors state that values statements

should clearly indicate the ‘‘actions, behaviors, and commitments necessary to bring

mission and vision to life’’ (p. 148). None of the values statements met these

criteria, with the possible, partial exception of the single, most complete values

statement included above. For example, one of the other, more typical values

statement reads, ‘‘[Our school system] is a system that is unique and values

diversity, commitment, service, and learning’’. Again, while these are all certainly

admirable values, none of the statements clearly outlines actions, behaviors, and

commitments to guide the implementation of these values in every day, professional

practice in a school setting.

Content of goals statements

Twelve of the 80 (15 %) educational leadership students responding to the survey

were able to recall some sort of goals statements developed and adopted by their

schools. However, as mentioned earlier, in a goal statement, organizational

members spell out precisely what level of performance is to be achieved in the

selected domain and what steps are to be taken, by whom, in order to achieve the

goal. The goals statements recalled were somewhat vague and non-specific and

included such statements as, ‘‘Our goal is to prepare students to enter college or

work force,’’ or ‘‘[Our goal] is to model the importance of life-long learning

activities daily in the curriculum’’. Eight of the 12 goals statements recalled by

respondents were of this nature.

In the second phase of analysis, researchers compared the statements of survey

respondents to the SMART goal standard. Four (5 %) of the recalled statements

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 233

123

gave some indication that SMART goals had indeed been developed and adopted.

Example statements that gave evidence of SMART goal development included:

Each year we develop academic goals based on the previous year’s test data.

For example, one goal would be: Math test scores will increase from 84 to

90 % in 3rd grade. Then we set numeric goals per grade level for reading and

math.

Another stated simply, ‘‘… to increase the number of students scoring Level 4 on

[the state assessment], each grade level will focus on reading comprehension and

writing’’. In the first example, strong evidence is provided indicating that a SMART

goal had been developed. The second example suggests that such a process had been

followed in developing goals statements for the school.

Discussion

Based upon strategic planning and school improvement conceptual frameworks

(Bryson 2004; DuFour et al. 2008; Kaufman 1992; Mintzberg 1994) we conducted a

study designed to explore the extent to which graduate-level, educational leadership

students were able to recall, on demand, any part of the mission, vision, values, and

goals statements adopted by the schools in which they were currently serving as

professional educators. Further, we asked survey respondents to report the level to

which these organizational statements impacted their daily practice in the school

context. We identified a convenience sample of students enrolled in university

educational leadership graduate degree programs because of their experience

working in schools and because they would likely be knowledgeable about such

foundational, organizational statements as mission, vision, values, and goals.

The authors designed the study to follow-up and extend the research conducted

by Watkins and McCaw (2007) who discovered that, among their own graduate-

level, educational leadership students, the ability to recall any or all of their schools’

statements of mission, vision, and core values was limited, that alignment between

such statements between the school and district levels was limited, and that a large

majority of the recalled statements did not meet criteria for how such statements are

defined in the literature on organizational improvement. The results from the current

study confirm these findings and combine to suggest a disturbing lack of

understanding of the purpose and value of developing and stewarding mission,

vision, values, and goals statements among graduate-level, educational leadership

students.

Lack of focus on student learning as school mission

Leadership students in the current study were nearly unanimous (94 %) in claiming

that their schools had adopted a mission statement. This is good news!

However, upon close analysis of the content recalled by leadership students of

their school mission statements, researchers determined that the school mission

statements, while overwhelmingly inclusive of purpose statements, failed to identify

234 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

high levels of student learning or supporting academic achievement as a primary

purpose of their schools (DuFour et al. 2008). In fact, only about 14 % of the

content of mission statements recalled included any statement of student learning as

a primary focus of schools. This is disturbing!

Strategic planning and school improvement experts have consistently and, over a

long period of time, identified the value of mission statements as a key element in

defining organizational purpose. While mission statements in our sample did

identify key organizational purposes, many of those purposes were unrelated or only

loosely related to student learning. The largest amount of recalled content of their

schools’ mission statements, in fact, focused on the inclusion of all students and on

developing character traits in students such as reaching their potential, developing

productive citizenship, preparing for their future in a global society, and developing

life-long learning skills.

If a mission statement is intended to clarify a singular and compelling purpose, or

raison d’etre for a school’s existence, one might hope or even expect that student

learning would be at the top of the list of possible purposes for schools. Clearly

these data suggest a lack of focus by school leaders, in the contexts represented, on

the obvious reason that schools exist, that is, effecting high levels of learning for all

(DuFour et al. 2008).

We acknowledge that there exists some level of disagreement among school

personnel and educational experts regarding the primary purpose of schools.

Schools, indeed, can and do fulfill many important purposes for students, only one

of which is increased levels of learning and achievement. Clearly, however, the

preponderance of literature on strategic planning exhorts leaders to work toward

defining a singular, organizational purpose in order to focus the efforts of

organizational members toward a set of common goals (Bardwell 2008; Bryson

2004; Crittenden and Crittenden 1997; Moore 2000). Further, among school

improvement experts specifically, this singular mission for schools has coalesced

around the issue of increasing levels of student learning (DuFour et al. 2008;

Lunenberg 2010; Stemler et al. 2011). We further acknowledge that defining such a

singular purpose or mission for schools may be perceived by some as limiting

educators’ perceptions of why schools exist. Nevertheless, we contend that the

process of defining and focusing organizational members’ shared understanding of

student learning as the primary function of schools serves to focus organizational

effort. Such a process does not preclude schools from addressing a multitude of

purposes and student needs. Rather, the process serves to direct and focus the school

improvement efforts of individuals and of the group toward common ends.

Lack of shared vision

Another clear direction from the literature calls for school leaders to develop,

articulate, implement, and steward a clear, shared vision among school personnel.

The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), in 1996, identified

six standards for school leaders, widely adopted by licensing agencies across the

United States (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO] 2008). The first of

these standards charges school leaders with the development of a shared vision

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 235

123

among all school personnel (CCSSO 2008). Kouzes and Posner (2006) stated, ‘‘You

can leave a lasting legacy only if you can imagine a brighter future, and the capacity

to imagine exciting future possibilities is the defining competence of leaders’’ (p.

99).

Data from the current study suggest yet another disturbing disconnect between

best practice and reality, insofar as a mere 14 % of educational leadership students

were able to recall any part of a future-oriented vision statement adopted by their

school. We acknowledge that, just because a school leader may not be able to recall

specific language from their school’s vision statement, this does not necessarily

indicate that there is no adopted vision statement in the school. What it does

indicate, however, is that, even if a vision statement is clearly articulated, and even

perhaps framed and hanging in the front hall, the vision itself has not been

internalized by key formal and informal leaders. A statement, made by DuFour et al.

(2008), springs to life in light of these data when they claimed that ‘‘there is an

enormous difference between merely writing a mission [or vision] statement and

actually living it’’ (p. 114).

No articulated organizational values

Data from this study indicated a nearly universal absence of articulated values or

organizational commitments in schools represented by study participants. Only six

of 80 respondents (7.5 %) could recall any part of a set of values articulated and

adopted by their schools. The reverse of this statistic implies that well over 90 % of

formal and informal leaders in the schools represented had no knowledge of any

shared values articulated by their school personnel. As with the data for mission and

vision statements, the overwhelming lack of ability of school leaders to recall values

statements suggests, simply put, that a set of shared commitments has not been

articulated in the schools represented. One wonders, then, exactly what are the

values demonstrated in the daily practice of organizational and school personnel.

Organizational and educational experts agree that articulated values, or shared

commitments, are fundamental to the process of organizational improvement. These

statements are not merely a set of words or platitudes. When commonly developed,

adopted, and lived, organizational values actually drive the daily practice of

individuals within the organization (Blanchard 2007; Blanchard and O’Connor

1997).

Lack of focused goal statements

Educational leadership students who responded to the survey were similarly unable

to recall key organizational goal statements relative to student learning, specifically,

or to school improvement in general. Again, this does not automatically imply that

goal statements have not been developed or identified in their schools. What it does

imply is that school leaders surveyed have not internalized these goals to a level

where they are conscious of them and are able to recall even any part of those goals

on demand. The fact that only 12 of 80 (15 %) students could recall any part of the

goal statements of their schools, and, of those, only 4 (5 %) could recall their

236 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

organizational goals with any specificity, suggests a fourth looming disconnect in

the practice of school leaders. As Schmoker (2003) stated, ‘‘Abundant research and

school evidence suggest that setting goals may be the most significant act in the

entire school improvement process, greatly increasing the odds of success’’ (p. 23).

The problem of impact

As mentioned above, the current research project was designed to follow up on and

extend research conducted by Watkins and McCaw (2007). While the results from

the current study confirm Watkins’ and McCaw’s findings in terms of a lack of

educational leadership students’ ability to recall key organizational statements, the

questions regarding survey respondents’ perceived effect that mission, vision,

values, and goals statements had on their daily work offers an extension of Watkins

and McCaw’s research.

Considering the lack of ability of our own students to recall any part of their

schools’ mission, vision, values, and goals statements, it is not surprising that survey

respondents also reported low levels of impact these statements had on their daily,

professional practice. Revisiting the data presented in Table 3, we suggest that such

low levels of impact that these key organizational statements reportedly had on

professional practice of school leadership students is very likely mirrored by

personnel throughout their schools.

To be explicit, let us consider the following statements derived from our data on

perceived impact of the mission, vision, values and goals in the schools represented:

1. Well over half of school leaders surveyed reported that the mission statement in

their school had only some to no effect on their daily practice as educators.

2. Fifty-six percent of school leaders reported either that their school had no

articulated vision statement or that the vision statement that was present had

little to no effect on their daily work as school leaders.

3. Sixty percent of school leaders surveyed reported no articulated values

statements (i.e., common commitments) in their schools.

4. Only 23 % of school leaders surveyed reported that the articulated goals

statements in their schools had a large to maximum effect on what they did

every day at work!

Concluding remarks

Findings from the current study may be provocative inasmuch as they imply that

school leaders continue to ignore the call from educational change experts to

establish, and especially to steward, a shared purpose in the context of school

improvement efforts. This is evidenced by the fact that school leadership students

surveyed were either unable to recall the content of such statements or recalled

statements that were so widely varied as to suggest a lack of shared understanding

and focus that is centered around the purpose and future of their schools.

Furthermore, our respondents reported that the statements they could recall had only

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 237

123

a minimal impact on their daily practice. We also note that, even among the

mission, vision, values, and goals statements that have been articulated, such

foundational statements, intended to focus and drive organizational change in the

schools represented, are imprecise, and are not expressly focused on student

learning.

From a broader perspective, the findings from this study point to a long-

established reality among those who have studied organizational and educational

change; there exists a wide gap between theory and practice, or between what we

know as educators, and what we do in schools (Dewey 1938; Fullan 1998, 1999;

Pfeffer and Sutton 2000; Sarason 1971). Returning to the arguments made by

leading scholars in educational change, effecting systemic change within organi-

zations is, at best, a rare occurrence, due in part to the complexity of the

organization, to the multiplicity of purposes and values espoused by organizational

members, and to the fluid contexts in which they operate (Fullan 1993, 1998, 1999;

Hargreaves et al. 2001; Sarason 1971). These experts argued that change agents,

committed to the process of school improvement, may be unsuccessful due to a lack

of understanding of the nature of this complexity. Reflecting on the work of

Sarason, Fried (2003) re-emphasized the complexity of schools and the problem of

change by restating Sarason’s words, ‘‘It could be argued that schools and school

personnel vary so fantastically on so many different levels that attempts to arrive at

communalities or distinctive patterns of behavior and attitudes are rendered

meaningless or fruitless’’ (p. 80).

Our study confirms these authors’ theory of complexity of the change process.

Certainly, the process of school improvement is a formidable task. However, rather

than resigning ourselves to the ‘‘fruitless’’ nature of school change, we hope that

these findings may contribute to uncovering and more fully understanding the nature

of this complexity by recognizing that, at least among our respondents, the guiding

principles and specific goals of their organizations appear to be unclear, at best, and

have not been internalized by organizational players. Perhaps school personnel who

fail to achieve desired success in effecting change may be informed by reflecting on

the possibility that school leaders, and the people they lead, suffer from a lack of

understanding, articulation, unity, and shared commitment to the mission, vision,

values, and goals of their organization. We believe that school change agents and

their communities would be well-served to recognize and address the fact that

school personnel vary widely in their ‘‘beliefs, norms, and practices across diverse

schools,’’ and to work toward a unification of purpose to support effective, school-

and system-wide change (Talbert 2010, p. 569).

We further contend that leaders who work toward meaningful and substantial

change in schools would benefit from reflecting on the source and power of a shared

purpose among school personnel. Based on a multi-national study of successful

school leadership, Mulford (2010) concluded:

The principal’s core values and beliefs, together with the values and capacities

of other members of the school community, feed directly into the development

of a shared school vision, which shapes the teaching and learning—student

and social capital outcomes of schooling (p. 201)

238 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

The power of shared mission, vision, values, and goals among school personnel to

shape teaching and learning, i.e., the core technology of schools, is difficult to

overstate and certainly worthy of continued focus and reflection.

Though the findings from the current study may be interpreted by some as an

indictment of school leaders in general, and of our own students specifically, that is

certainly not the intent of this research project. On the contrary, the current research

project was designed to explore findings from previous research (Watkins and

McCaw 2007) in order to compare results and to give further consideration to what

may be interpreted as some rather disturbing disconnects between best practice and

the realities of daily practice of school leaders. Indeed, such widespread inability of

educational leadership students, all of whom work actively and daily in their

respective schools should raise red flags, not just in our own university setting, but

among personnel in school leadership preparation programs across the nation. Of

course, the findings of our study may not be generalized beyond the context in

which the research was conducted. Other researchers may find very dissimilar

results to our own within the contexts of their own settings. However, the findings

should and do raise more questions than they answer.

Careful consideration of these findings may benefit school leadership profes-

sionals, and professionals who work to prepare school leaders, as well, in the effort

to have a powerful and effective impact on the school improvement process. Despite

decades of evidence and admonishment by organizational and school improvement

experts, school leaders may simply continue to misunderstand the purpose and

power of developing school mission, vision, values, and goals statements at best.

And, at worst, the evidence may suggest that school leaders, in many places, may

simply be ignoring the evidence of the essential nature of the development of key

organizational statements to the detriment of the improvement processes in the

schools to which they are, undoubtedly, deeply committed.

Implications for school leadership preparation programs

This study was conducted by educational leadership faculty in an effort to

understand and explore what appeared in previous studies to be a lack of

understanding and implementation among school leaders of the four key organi-

zational statements. Findings from this study suggest that faculty involved in

university school leadership programs would do well to clarify for students the

meaning of organizational mission, vision, values, and goals statements, as well as

explore the powerful impact that the articulation, widespread adoption, and

alignment to such statements can have on the process of school improvement. What

is clear from the results of this analysis is that educational leadership students had

little to no knowledge of the content of these statements in their schools. Clearly, it

follows then, that such statements will have little to no effect on their practice.

Leadership preparation programs would also do well to emphasize the how and

the why of articulating, adopting, implementing, and stewarding shared mission,

vision, values, and goals to serve as a vehicle for unifying school stakeholders

around a common purpose and direction for the future, that is, toward increased

levels of learning for all students.

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 239

123

Implications for further research

Researchers continue to study the school improvement process on many levels and

examine best practice from many different angles. The continued study of the

purpose and power of clearly developed and shared school mission, vision, values,

and goals statements is definitely in order. Findings from this study and others add

evidence to the knowing-doing gap (DuFour et al. 2010; Schmoker 2006) in

educators’ efforts to improve schools and to effect high levels of learning for all

students. Surprisingly, little research exists that contributes to the unveiling of how

prevalent the gap is between what school leaders know and what school leaders

actually do on a daily basis.

Research analyzing the actual (as opposed to recalled) content of school mission,

vision, values, and goals statements is only recently beginning to emerge (Stemler

et al. 2011). Further study in this area (e.g., rural, suburban, and urban schools) is

indicated, as well.

Finally, the findings from this study have led us to pose the following two key

questions to researchers, school leaders, and to those who prepare individuals to

assume school leadership roles. The first question is, When school leaders know

what to do to improve schools (i.e., begin by developing, articulating, and

stewarding clear school mission, vision, values, and goals statements), and how to

accomplish these beginning steps, why do school leaders continue to ignore these

foundational practices? The second, and perhaps more profound question is, In the

absence of such guiding statements, what statements or belief systems, perhaps

unwritten and unexamined, are serving as de facto school missions, visions, values,

and goals for school personnel? While addressing these questions was beyond the

scope of the current study, we believe that the findings of the study, and others, are a

clear implication of the need for further investigation and discussion into these

important matters.

References

Bardwell, R. (2008). Transformational assessment: A simplified model of strategic planning. AASA

Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 5(2), 30–37.

Blanchard, K. (2007). Leading at a higher level: Blanchard on leadership and creating high performing

organizations. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Blanchard, K., & O’Connor, R. (1997). Managing by values. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Boerema, A. J. (2006). An analysis of private school mission statements. Peabody Journal of Education,

81(1), 180–202.

Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening

and sustaining organizational achievement (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of

Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.

Calder, W. B. (2011). Institutional VVM statements on web sites. Community College Enterprise, 17(2),

19–27.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational leadership policy standards: ISLLC 2008.

Washington: Council of Chief State School Officers.

240 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oak: Sage.

Crittenden, W. F., & Crittenden, V. L. (1997). Strategic planning in third-sector organizations. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 9(1), 86–103.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New

insights for improving schools. Bloomington: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional

learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing

student achievement. Bloomington: National Education Service.

Fried, R. L. (2003). The skeptical visionary: A Seymour Season education reader. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (1998). The meaning of educational change: A quarter century of learning. In A. Hargreaves,

A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change.

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press. In A. Hargreaves, L. Earl,

S. Moore, & S. Manning (eds.), (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and

standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond

subjects and standards. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kaufman, R. (1992). Strategic planning plus: An organizational guide. Newbury Park: Sage.

Kose, B. W. (2011). Developing a transformative school vision: Lessons from peer-nominated principals.

Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 119–136.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2006). A leader’s legacy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the field at a given time. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.

Lunenberg, F. C. (2010). Creating a professional learning community. National Forum of Educational

Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1–7.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.

Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McHatton, P. A., Bradshaw, W., Gallagher, P. A., & Reeves, R. (2011). Results from a strategic planning

process: Benefits for a nonprofit organization. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22(2),

233–249.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press.

Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J. M., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting and student achievement: A longitudinal

study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 1–17.

Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and

governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183–204.

Mulford, B. (2010). Recent developments in the field of educational leadership: The challenge of

complexity. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international

handbook of educational change. New York: Springer.

O’Neill, J. (2000). SMART goals, SMART schools. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 46–50.

Pekarsky, D. (2007). Vision and education: Arguments, counterarguments, rejoinders. American Journal

of Education, 113(3), 423–450.

Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: Free Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into

action. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Quong, T., Walker, A., & Stott, K. (1998). Values-based strategic planning: A dynamic approach for

schools. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations. Denver: Advanced

Learning Press.

Renchler, R. (1991). Leadership with a vision: How principals develop and implement their visions for

school success. OSSC Bulletin, 34(5), 1–29.

Rosengren, K. E. (Ed.). (1981). Advances in content analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.

J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242 241

123

Sarason, S. B. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Alyn & Bacon.

Schmoker, M. (2003). First things first: Demystifying data analysis. Educational Leadership, 60(5),

22–24.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and

learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Stemler, S. E., Bebell, D., & Sonnabend, L. A. (2011). Using school mission statements for reflection and

research. Education Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 383–420.

Talbert, J. E. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or

engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second

international handbook of educational change. New York: Springer.

Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (Eds.). (2000). The international handbook on school effectiveness research.

New York: Falmer Press.

United States Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Accessed http://www.ed.gov/

policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

Watkins, S. G., & McCaw, D. S. (2007). Analysis of graduate students’ knowledge of school district

mission, vision, and core values. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision

Journal, 24(3), 71–91.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement. Alexandria:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

242 J Educ Change (2015) 16:217–242

123

Copyright of Journal of Educational Change is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.