Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.0.Beta5/980425bjb) with SMTP id OAA22685; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:36:56 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <391C4E38.C4816D9B@nr.infi.net>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "amy r. trawick" <atrawick@nr.infi.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:1019] Re: Summit Feedback Process: The Goal
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
Status: O
Content-Length: 4479
Lines: 93
Thank you, Chris, for clarifying the terminology. Your explanation was quite
helpful, and I think these distinctions are not a matter of mere semantics but are
indeed important to the discussion: What exactly do we as a field need to get
where we want to go??
I've been thinking about your comment that the field (I'm not sure I'd call it a
system yet) could do with a vision statement, but not necessarily a mission
statement. It seems to me we need both. If we are indeed trying to create a
*system*, all parts of that system should be pointed in the same direction. I can
see the common mission focusing energies throughout the system. Of course,
individual programs/regions would still have their own missions, zeroing in on how
they can, in particular, meet the broader mission.
If we used the vision you gave as an example ("a society where everyone has the
opportunity to develop the literacy skills they need and/or desire"), then it
seems appropriate that the adult ed. system state in a mission statement how it
contributes to that vision (as opposed to K-12). Perhaps something like, "The
mission of the adult education and literacy system (or whatever) is to provide
quality opportunities for adults to learn the basic knowledge and skills needed to
_________ (4 purposes) in their roles as __________ (roles)."
Or, in a bad world, the mission could read something like, "The mission of the
adult education and literacy system is to teach drop-outs the skills they need to
graduate from high school." Both of these missions might address the vision, but
they reflect very different philosophies and result in very different
opportunities. (Not to say that getting a GED or high school diploma is a bad
thing--but I think it should come from the learner in the context of how getting
this credential will affect their lives, not from the program as an end-all of
their program. The first mission statement leaves room for the second; the second
does not leave room for the first.)
Once a decent mission was developed, then goals and objectives could be
established--the actual action plan the paper addresses. NIFL, federal and state
adult ed. depts, community-based programs, local/regional ABE/GED programs, family
literacy, ESL, etc., could then determine their own missions within the system's
mission.
Amy Trawick
High Point, North Carolina
atrawick@nr.infi.net
Sjesl@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps we need to be clearer with ourselves first about what vision,
> mission, goals and objectives are. Having been trained in program development
> in the context of international development/aid, I think in the following
> terms:
>
> The Vision is about our community or society and what we want it to be.
>
> The Mission is a statement about the organization's role in accomplishing the
> Vision.
>
> Goals are broader statements, with objectives defining the specifics of that
> goal. Objectives are monitored, while attainment of goals are evaluated. (Not
> to be confused with how you use these terms with individuals or clients)
>
> I do not think the system needs a Mission. Discussion in those terms are more
> appropriate at organizational or regional levels. I do think the system needs
> a Vision. Visions do not discuss services, although they might discuss access
> to services.
>
> For example, the Vision might be a society where everyone has the opportunity
> to develop the literacy skills they need and/or desire. (Each organization or
> coalition of organizations have their own mission vis-a-vis this.) As the
> system, we may then describe what the system needs to be in order to support
> the Vision, with realization and responses to the fact that the system is
> only one contributing component of addressing the Vision. In describing this
> system, we can then identify what changes need to be made and develop goals/ob
> jectives for the system.
>
> I don't think we actually need to be very specific in our Vision. Rather we
> should focus our efforts on answering in what specific ways does the system
> need to change, especially how do we need to change in the ways we work
> together and with other organizations, systems, etc. I realize this has been
> part of our discussion, but the discussion gets confusing when it flips
> between vision, mission and goals.
>
> Christopher J. Koehler, Program Director
> St. James ESL Program
> 804 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104
> 206-382-4510 206-382-4511
> sjesl@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 29 2001 - 15:04:11 EST