The future is not a result of choice among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created—created first in mind and will, created next in activity.

The future is not some place we are going to but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination.

—John Schaar, Political Scientist

Rapid changes in society are requiring rapid changes in educational organizations. Yet, we also need to regularly revisit our missions to be certain that we have not lost the end in pursuing the means. At the same time that we revisit our purposes, we must continually re-envision what our organization will look like and be dedicated to in order to fulfill the mission. This vision is, as is suggested by Schaar, created first in the mind and will.

Peter Senge (1990) suggests that leadership for creating a shared vision—one that will capture the collective mind and will—begins with creative tension. He describes how creative tension emerges from seeing clearly where we want to be (the vision) and describing truthfully where we are now (the current reality). The gap between the two generates creative tension (Figure IV.1).

Figure IV.1. Creative Tension

This principle of creative tension has long been recognized by leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., who stated, "Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind, so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths . . . so must we create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism." Or, as Steven Jobs observed, "If you are working on something exciting that you really care about, you don't have to be pushed. The vision pulls you."

This tension, according to Senge (1990), can be resolved in two ways: by raising current reality toward the vision or by lowering the vision toward current reality. We suggest that it is an individual's or organization's continual assessment that provides a mirror for reflection about the relationship between vision and reality. Assessment is what drives the feedback spiral and provides the creative tension between what is and the best we can imagine.

Effective leaders know how to cause creative organizational tension and how to harness the energy and intellectual stimulation it produces. They create for themselves and facilitate for others the process of developing visions of what could be, images of desired states, valued aspirations, and scenarios of more appropriate futures. Educational leaders bring together the stakeholders—community, staff, and students—to form visions of what a desirable education and school organization could be. They also set in motion a process to assess the alignment with and progress toward achieving that vision. They install the value of assessment—an assessment frame of mind—that pervades all levels of the organization. The vision will be shared and valued only when a process of assessment is in place to provide feedback about the degree to which the vision is being achieved.

When we consider shared vision, we recognize that an entire organization consists of many parts. Our conception is an intentional relationship between parts and whole. We cannot expect more of our students than we do of ourselves. The entire organization must be guided by a set of principles.

In Part I we refer to this as an holonomous learning organization where there is a congruence within the organization and, at the same time, any one part of the organization provides a lens into the whole organization. For example, many natural systems possess a fractal quality; that is, they share similar details on many different scales and levels (Briggs 1992). Consider the endless duplication of the patterns of a cauliflower or the repetitions in the shape of a fern. Focusing on any part of the system reveals a reproduction of the system itself.

We contend that assessment creates a fractal quality that reproduces the values of goal setting and clarification, actions to achieve the goals, assessment and feedback, reflection, and further action (the feedback spiral). Only as these attributes spread throughout the entire organization will the vision be shared.

Search for Integrity

Although leadership is important in recognizing the need for shared vision, the alignment process is not a simple one. At the center of any vision is a core set of beliefs or world view. People are actors within their world view, but they do not always examine what guides their actions. The work of shared vision requires a deeper understanding of not just the rhetoric of what we believe but how our actions must be changed to be congruent with the organization's beliefs as well as with the self.

Fullan (1993) points out that sharing a vision does not mean adopting someone else's vision. Reliance on someone else's vision perpetuates cultures of dependence and conformity. Visions die prematurely when they are merely hollow statements developed by leadership teams and when they attempt to impose false consensus that suppresses rather than enables personal visions to flourish.

Fullan goes on to state that deep ownership and sharing of vision comes through the learning that arises from full engagement in solving problems. He states: "The development of authentic shared vision builds on the skills of change agentry: personal vision building through moral purpose, inquiry, mastery, and collaboration. Collective vision building is a deepening, reinforcing process of increasing clarity, enthusiasm, communication, and commitment. As people talk, try things out, inquire, re-try—all of this jointly—people become more skilled, ideas become clearer, shared commitment gets stronger."

Fullan supports the "ready, fire, aim" sequence of reform. While there needs to be some notion of direction at the "ready" stage, it is through action and inquiry where skills, clarity, and learning are fostered at the "fire" stage. "Aim" is a crystallization of new beliefs, formulating mission and vision statements, and commitment building. Vision comes later at step three, not at step one. The process of continuous assessment—of constantly monitoring the results of actions, comparing them with the emergence of values, and making personal and organizational meaning through reflection—is what builds shared vision.

Figures IV.2 and IV.3 describe how individuals and organizations employ assessment to search for integrity and congruence between practice and vision. At the center of each diagram is a core set of beliefs. And at the heart of change is the question about how congruent individual beliefs are with the system's set of beliefs, parents' beliefs, and the community's beliefs. The process of shared vision is an alignment process. A learning organization is prepared to work on alignment as an ongoing process to guide its' actions.

Figure IV.2. Individual Response to Innovation

Figure IV.3. System Response to Innovation

Let us examine two levels of alignment: individual and system.

Figure IV.2 illustrates how an individual's belief system responds to innovation or change. Say, for example, this center represents a teacher's core set of beliefs about group process as a tool for developing higher-order thinking. The teacher believes firmly that students should be able to work in groups as a way of constructing knowledge. She perceives the need for students to have powerful conversations about subject matter and would like the students to develop more autonomy and authority in their thinking.

The next ring suggests the existing practices that the teacher has used to take action on those beliefs. She has attempted to have the students work in small groups but has found that students do not stay task focused and that the work does not lead to higher-order thinking. She tries to focus her discussions, but she finds that they always seem to be dominated by a few students. After many attempts, she returns to more traditional practices in frustration. She uses traditional management strategies and keeps a tight control over the classroom. She is disappointed with the level of discussion and thinking in the class, but she sees no way to change this.

The next ring provides for the teacher's participation in some experience that suggests a new way of dealing with this question: a staff development workshop or training course, a book she's read, a conference with a coach, a classroom visitation, or attendance at a professional convention. Although she has appeared to be a fairly traditional teacher, the innovation she tries fits her now latent desire to nurture students with greater independence and authority over their thinking. She learns more successful grouping strategies, how to structure more complex and engaging tasks, and how to develop a curriculum that is more student centered. The only way that this innovation becomes a chosen way of practice rather than another technique to use occasionally is when it fits with the center core of beliefs or if the center core of beliefs changes in light of her engagement with the innovation. In other words, unless the teacher experiences some cognitive dissonance or creative tension with the present mental model, change will take place only on the surface and will not last.

The frame for this organizer is assessment. When it is not seen as punitive or intimidating, assessment can frame the opportunity to stabilize the change. When the teacher agrees to collect evidence of students' process and product regarding higher-order thinking, the evidence will provide a lens through which she can re-examine her assumptions about teaching and learning. For example, the teacher may try one of the group strategies that she learned. She may ask students to solve a complex problem and focus on the level of thinking that takes place as they work. The evidence she collects might include scripting one group, videotaping group work, developing criteria regarding successful thinking in group work, and using a self-assessment tool for students.

The key point is that the teacher will be prepared to frame her assessment in light of the core beliefs as well as the instructional strategies. She may need to list her assumptions about learning in groups as a way to assist her as she determines what evidence to collect. This process, as we have described in the feedback spiral, provides a frame for what Phil Jackson refers to as the 1,300 decisions a teacher makes while teaching (1968).

Figure IV.3 illustrates how holonomous learning organizations seek congruence among all the individuals and groups that work within the system. As individual teachers examine their core beliefs about teaching and learning, so do parents, administrators, and boards of education. So, for example, a system may have established in its core beliefs that higher-order thinking and self-directed learning are important. They may have established that learning from multiple perspectives is a significant strength of a diverse learning community. The next ring around those beliefs is, once again, the actions that have been taken.

Perhaps the superintendent says, "I believe that these attributes are important, and I hope that teachers will make them happen in the classroom." Or perhaps the superintendent says, "I believe that these attributes are important, and I will make certain that my behaviors reflect the significance of these attributes." If she says the latter, she is working toward alignment. If she says the former, alignment will be less likely.

The ring around the core beliefs represents how the superintendent has tried to realize these beliefs through her work but has had difficulty. She tried shared decision making, but it led to system paralysis. She tried to engage teachers in conversations about their practice, but it didn't lead to higher-order thinking. She is frustrated and, under pressure, falls back to the tradition of making decisions on her own. She has fewer meetings and says there is no time for shared decision making and thinking.

The next ring brings her to some new strategies and innovations. She now has learned something about how to facilitate a group discussion with administrators that will lead to higher-order thinking. She is able to facilitate more thoughtful group work in schools for shared decision making. She is learning how to use new techniques that are compatible with or change her beliefs.

Once again, the assessment frame serves as a catalyst for either creating or dealing with her cognitive dissonance. She not only learns new ways of dealing with groups, but she examines her purposes more closely. She is able to collect evidence in relationship to questions that have disturbed her about group work. For example, her impression is that group work led to paralysis. How can she collect evidence about that impression? As she tries the new strategies, how will she define success for the group? What would she look for that would tell her that meaningful decisions are being made? How might the group build practices that require them to self-assess their work?

The significance of these maps is in examining how well they are aligned. If a system finds that there is a high degree of alignment between individual and group in terms of core beliefs and continuous examination of actions on behalf of those beliefs, it is a learning organization—there is integrity and congruence. If there is a great deal of misalignment and incongruence, the organization is at odds with itself and it is likely that individuals, who are extremely sensitive to the subtle cues of organizational integrity, will retreat to safety rather than commit to system change.

Systems can have conflicting forces pulling them from many different external sources in many different directions. For example, as Figure IV.3 illustrates, there might be pressures from the Board of Education, the community, parents, the teachers' union, the state department of education, federal education acts, and administrators. Each of these groups may have a different perspective to bring to the task of establishing a core set of beliefs. However, the challenge of a democratic nation is bringing multiple perspectives together and finding enough agreement to move forward in the best interest of society. Since the purpose of schools is to prepare students for participation in a democracy, its practice at all levels of the school system becomes essential to the significance of that purpose.

Achieving the Shared Vision

In an interview on National Public Radio, former New York governor Mario Cuomo was asked how he could explain the fact that he described in very articulate and visionary terms what he thought needed to be done in the best interest of the people of his state and yet was unable to deliver on that vision. A paraphrase of his response was, "A leader needs to be a visionary. A leader has to remind people of the best possible circumstances toward which we must strive. A leader must be able to do this in spite of the fact that he will probably be unable to reach that ideal during his leadership." Cuomo is espousing the philosophy of shared visioning.

Our premise for re-examining schools is that it will take agreement from the entire community before schools will really be able to make the necessary changes to meet the needs of our diverse society. Nothing short of a commitment to continuous improvement toward common purposes that will take place over time will achieve change. We are faced with the need to modify our linear way of thinking and accept that to provide a better education for each of our children, we will be navigating dynamic, responsive, and ever-changing waters. Our journey will feel more like whitewater rafting than an easy cruise across the ocean. To begin this journey, we will need to revisit what we consider to be the purpose of school in our democratic nation. We suggest that the school's mission is:

• To educate people so that they can live productively in our economy.
• To educate people so they can fully accept the responsibility of citizenship in our democracy.
• To educate people so they can make the best use of their leisure time through the arts and personal well being.

These have always been the mission of schools in our society. We need to have continuing dialogue that reminds us of this mission as we develop aims, goals, and expected outcomes for students. Those conversations will eventually lead to agreement about what it is we expect students to know and be able to do when they leave our schools. However, in an holonomous learning organization, we must be certain that we do not expect more from our students than we expect of ourselves. Our shared vision must include all members of the community, not just the children. As long as we expect the vision to be for the future, we allow ourselves to behave as if the achievement of that vision is the responsibility of the next generation.

Outcomes, on the other hand, are what we all should live by and expect of ourselves in our own performance. For example, if we want students to be able to think and communicate critically and analytically, do we find attributes of critical and analytical communication in ourselves, in our classrooms, in our schools, in our district, and in our community?

Schools across the country are struggling through a process of developing their missions, describing outcomes, deriving goals, setting standards, and identifying performance indicators. Let us examine one typical set of outcomes or results from one community and ask whether they make sense not only for the students but also for the other members of the school community.

In the first district, staff members, students, and community members met regularly, over time, to describe student outcomes. After much consideration, they described the following:

• Responsible, caring citizens.
• Lifelong learners.
• Responsible citizens in a diverse and global society.
• People with a sense of well being and healthy self-esteem.
• Caretakers of the earth.
• Appreciate the arts.
• Enthusiasm in academic pursuits.

Consider these outcomes in light of four criteria for the holonomous learning organization:

• The outcomes transcend all subject matter and grade levels—all staff members can commit to them.
• Cumulative evidence along a developmental continuum may be gathered regarding the increasingly complex performance of these outcomes over time.
• Evidence of these results may be observed by the time our students complete their schooling.
• These outcomes are lifelong pursuits as appropriate for the adults as they are for students and we see similar evidence of increased learning among the adults in the school community.

By these standards, are this first district's outcomes worthy of assessment? Notice some of the problematic words when you consider demonstrations: responsible, sense of, caretakers, appreciate, enthusiastic. Each of these statements represents a vision of what would be good to see but would be difficult to demonstrate.

There seems to be some confusion between what is meant by a shared vision and outcomes. We are confused about what we consider to be a vision and have difficulty distinguishing the sense of direction a vision offers us from the small and concrete steps we take to get there. We share a vision that all students in our society will have an equal opportunity to be educated. We now need to examine the small, concrete steps that we take to get there. We refer to those steps as outcomes and we need to constantly ask ourselves, "Do the outcomes we have described help us to arrive at our shared vision?" When we look at the above outcomes, we question whether they are measurable, concrete steps. Many of them might be better stated as a shared vision for the future.

In a second school district, after considerable dialogue with community, the following outcomes were stated:

• Students will demonstrate competence in academic areas as measured by a set of standards.
• Students will know how to use technology to acquire information and solve problems.
• Students will be able to think and communicate critically and analytically.
• Students will be able to work cooperatively in order to accomplish more thoughtful work.
• Students will be able to see patterns and trends in raw data.
• Students will know the rigors of experimental inquiry.

This set of outcomes appears to be more demonstrable for students, staff, and community. We see the potential for each of these out comes to be assessed. They were derived from a shared vision about the purpose of schools. Note, however, that the first outcome—all academic areas—is the only outcome that refers to measurement because it is the only one for which we presently have accepted systems for measuring. The implication of this set of outcomes is that only one will be put to a test of accountability. The others appear to be valued, but there is no assurance that they will be valued enough to be assessed.

The present challenge we face in education as we name the more important and more valued outcomes for students is that we will need to create ways to assess whether students demonstrate evidence that they are showing progress in these areas. Our present pencil-and-paper testing system is too limited to provide evidence in areas such as critical thinking, finding patterns in raw data, and knowing how to and being able to perform rigorously when faced with a problem not seen before. These goals need to drive new curriculum alignment in thoughtful schools of the future. The delivery system—curriculum materials, instructional strategies, school organization, and the curriculum alignment decision making processes—needs to embody these goals not only for students but for all of the school's inhabitants.

Likewise, our methods of assessment must be transformed to become more consistent with our new goals. We cannot employ product-oriented assessment techniques to assess the achievement of these new, process-oriented educational outcomes (Costa and Kallick 1992). If a school or district values these outcomes enough, it will be demonstrated in their efforts to assess students' demonstrations of and proficiency in these more process-oriented outcomes.

The Assessment Matrix

"Look here," said the proud superintendent. "Here is our completed statement of our mission, our vision, our outcomes, and our goals for the school district. It's taken a long time, and we worked hard. We've involved the community and staff, parents, and even the students in hammering out this document. Our job, however, is far from complete. We must now decide on strategies to assess our progress toward and achievement of our outcomes. We must set in motion a mechanism for informing us about how are we doing in aligning our practices with our philosophy."

Many school boards adopt lofty and valuable goals, outcomes, mission statements, vision statements, and other philosophical creeds. While these may be inspirational, many staff and community members may see them as yet more "these too shall pass" documents to fulfill a public relations responsibility and to demonstrate the district's innovative stance by participation in a current educational trend. Such statements may end up gathering dust in the archives. Do they really make a difference?

We suggest that the addition of assessment is the signal to the staff and community that this is something different. We've had years of innovations in education that have made little difference. One reason that the innovations failed to be adopted widely and fell short of their desired ends was because they were not assessed adequately or they were assessed for the wrong reasons. (For example, does our program of enhancing self-esteem affect increased scores on standardized reading tests?)

Unfortunately, school environments, cultures, and traditions send mixed signals to teachers, support staff, parents, students and the community which, in turn, causes confusion in practice.

• We want students to think, but they must improve their scores on low-level cognitive standardized tests.
• We say we value creativity, but students are given multiple-choice tests.
• We want students to learn to work in cooperative groups, but when they are tested, they must quietly work individually and not look at other's papers.
• We want students to take the time to explore issues in depth, consider consequences, and identify assumptions, but tests are timed and the curriculum must be covered in preparation for graduation, the test or college entrance exam, or passing to the next grade level.
• We value student thinking, but school rewards are given for athletic performance, attendance, grades, and citizenship.
• Teachers are admonished to teach for thinking, but they are evaluated on their performance of a limited range of instructional behaviors that have been correlated with high test scores.

Thus, while using energy to further define and elaborate critical thinking, teachers' values are more influenced by the cues from their environment and school culture as to what is important to teach and assess (Frymier 1987). Traditionally structured schools, classrooms, testing procedures, and curriculum may send confusing and complicating signals to the staff, students, and community about what is truly valued and rewarded in school. The addition of congruent assessment of all that is valued as outcomes of schooling is the key to sharing the vision.

The matrix in Figure IV.4 can serve as a tool to ensure that we take into consideration all of our outcomes and find appropriate measures for them, and do not overload the system with one particular way of looking at student performance but develop complementary systems for assessing.

Figure IV.4. Assessment: A Planning Matrix

The purpose of this organizer is to assist district planning teams to ensure that all their valued outcomes are assessed in a suitable fashion. The intent is to enter the outcomes in the spaces across the top and then select from the array of assessment strategies in the left-hand column those that will best disclose data about achievement of that particular outcome. For example: Students may demonstrate "competence in academic areas" as measured by standardized achievement tests. These same tests, however, may not be the best way for students to demonstrate their "ability to think and communicate critically and analytically." Perhaps performances or journals would be more appropriate. Students' demonstration of their "ability to work cooperatively to accomplish more thoughtful work" may best be assessed through extended projects and teacher observation.

While all the assessment tools listed in the left column have their individual merits, no single form of assessment will prove adequate in providing information about all the goals. Each goal or outcome will necessitate one or more forms of assessment uniquely designed to disclose desired information in a form that will be meaningful to the audience for which it is intended: students, community, school board, teachers, or parents.

Our priorities are another signal of what is valued. Through the use of the matrix there can be a more systematic, complete, and balanced assessment of all the district's cherished outcomes. It is not intended that all outcomes will be assessed using all the assessment tools every year. Outcomes should be prioritized and rotated over the years. Some may be assessed yearly—academic areas, for example. The outcomes of "use of technology" or "working cooperatively" or "communicating critically and analytically" may be assessed periodically.

As we consider the discipline required for coming to a shared vision, we must also differentiate the outcomes or results we expect to see as we move toward that vision from the more idealistic vision itself. If we truly value our outcomes, we'll devote our resources to assessing them.

Anytime a change takes place in the future, it starts as a vision in someone's mind. The person draws other people into that vision, and when enough people are drawn into share that vision, it explodes into activity.

—Nancy Hathaway, Teacher, Adrian, Mich.

References

Briggs, J. (1992). Fractals: The Patterns of Chaos. New York: A Touchstone Book.

Costa, A., and B. Kallick. (1992). "Reassessing Assessment." In If Minds Matter, edited by J. Bellanca, R. Fogarty, and A. Costa. Palatine, Ill.: Skylight Publishing.

Frymier, J. (September 1987). "Bureaucracy and the Neutering of Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan 69, 1: 9-14.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. New York: The Falmer Press.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Senge, P. (Fall 1990). "The Leader's New Work: Building Learning Organizations." Sloan Management Review, pp. 7-21.

From Paradigm to Practice IV: Shared Vision One of the frustrations many educators experience in school change is how to make certain that, once a vision is developed, everyone in the school feels accountable to work toward it. In the work of Chris Louth, we see a classroom teacher's struggle to draw upon the shared vision from the Coalition of Essential Schools in her work with students. Marcia Knoll, Susan Kreisman, and Timothy Melchior discuss the strategies they used to try to bring coherence to classroom practices as they strive toward a shared vision for students.