606 EDUCATONAL LEADERSHP
j-l VCTOR W. DOHERTY AND LNDA B. PETERS O f th many aspcts of school systm planning and valua tion, prhaps th most critical and lusiv is that of goals and objc tivs. Until th aims of a school sys tm ar statd and valuatd, thr is no way of tlling how wll th systm is prforming its mission or vn knowing what its mission is. Much of th confusion about goals and objctivs rsults from th nd lss variations in styl, contnt, and lvl of gnrality of such statmnts. Diffrntiating typs of goals accord ing to th functions of a systm can hlp rduc this confusion. Thr ar ssntially thr kinds of functions in a school systm: man agmnt, which controls all functions of th systm including itslf; instruc tion, for which th systm xists; and support, which srvics th manag mnt and instruction functions. All organizational lmnts of a school systm can b classifid as srving primarily on of ths thr functions. W us th trm p o man "dsird outcom of a pro gram," rgardlss of its function. Th typs of outcoms producd by pro grams ar quit diffrnt, howvr. utcoms rlat to con trol of th organization. E outcoms ar studnt larnings. S utcoms ar srvics that sup port managmnt, instruction, or th systm gnrally. To dsignat ths diffrnt typs of outcoms, w us th trms m nd s Educational goals also rquir dif frnt lvls of gnrality at various lvls of planning. W suggst th trms s nd i W shall dfin ach of ths trms in mor dtail, but first w should xplain how w us th word "ob jctivs." Bcaus "managmnt by objctivs" implis that program chang will rsult from th stting of objctivs and th allocation of r sourcs to achiv thm, w rsrv us of th trm p or statmnts of intnt to chang program lmnts in spcifid ways to improv thir ffctivnss and fficincy. Such statmnts should consist of xplicit plans for ffcting improvmnt. including costs, timlins, and goals (out coms) th chang is intndd to influnc. s mn tiond arlir, an ducational pro gram goal is a statmnt of w s a rsult of an ducational program. Four lvls of ducational goal statmnt ar rquird for school systm plan ning: systm, curriculum, cours, and daily instruction. Thr is no diffr nc in th ssntial charactr of an ducational goal at ths diffrnt lvls only a diffrnc in spcific ity. Curriculum dvloprs will avoid confusion if thy us "goals" to dscrib outcoms, rgardlss of planning lvl, and "objctivs" to stat intndd changs. MAY 1981
Us of th trm "goal" to dscrib ducational outcoms at all planning lvls avoids th confusion that for yars has attndd fforts to tach and larn distinctions among trms lik purposs, aims, goals, and ob jctivs distinctions that wr not dirctly rlatd to organizational planning rquirmnts. W will x plain latr how to achiv a consist nt rlationship among ducational goals at ach lvl. support program goal is an outcom of a pro gram xisting to support th ntir school systm or on or mor of its componnts. Such functions as plan ning, valuating, curriculum dvlop mnt, data procssing, and public rlations ar xampls of support functions, and programs to carry thm out ar found in many school systms and vn schools. Two classs of support program goals can b idntifid: srvic goals, which spcify a srvic to b pr formd for anothr unit or units of th systm to nabl thm to rach thir goals; and systm support goals, which spcify an outcom th accom plishmnts of which will support th opration of an ntir district, a subdistirct, or a school. Support pro grams such as instructional matrials clarly xist to provid goods and srvics rquird by ducational man agrs to mt thir goals. Such pro grams should b govrnd by s hich stat th srvic to b providd, th rcipint of th srvic, and th typ, quality, and (or) fr quncy of srvic to b providd. Exampls of srvic goals for an instructional matrials program ar: To provid school principals fficint procurmnt and timly dlivry of audiovisual quipmnt ordrd To provid school principals timly rpair and rturn of instruc tional quipmnt upon rqust. Not that ths goals, though thy xist only to mak it possibl for du cational programs to attain thir goals, lnd thmslvs to indpndnt valuation. n most instancs, valua tion of a srvic goal is appropriatly th function of th unit(s) bing srv icd. Support srvics such as lgislativ and public rlations offics support an ntir systm. Thir goals ar-nds in thmslvs (outcoms) and diffr in this rgard from srvic goals. This class of goals, calld s s illustratd blow: To incras th amount and shar of stat support rcivd by th district To scur public undrstanding of and support for ducational pro grams of th systm To scur undrstanding on th part of tachrs and th administra tiv staff rgarding th policis and actions of th Board of Education. Explicit statmnts of support goals ar sldom found in school systms, but lik wll-formulatd ducational goals, thy can xrt a dirct and powrful influnc on th formulation of objctivs and pro grams. Also lik ducational goals, sup port goals rprsnt dsird condi tions which may not b fully ralizd. But thy provid guidlins which should contribut to th ovrall ffc tivnss of th ntrpris. Thy pro vid points of rfrnc for assssing th quality of th school systm. an agrs, th "lin officrs" of a school systm principals, administrativ di rctors, assistant suprintndnts for administration or oprations, and suprintndnts can and should st goals for thir own prformanc. Carrying out th ncssary functions of managmnt wll and fficintly is th ovrarching managmnt goal and should b th basis for manag mnt's valuation. Ths functions in clud: 1. Establishing and priodically r viwing goals for all programs bing managd. 2. Assssing attainmnt of goals in all programs bing managd. 3. Dtrmining improvmnt pri oritis within and among all programs bing managd (basd on assssmnt of goal attainmnt) and stting man agmnt objctivs. 4. Dvloping plans (and altrnanativs) for prioritis slctd for at tntion. 5. Slcting, rfining, and impl mnting programs for prioritis s lctd for attntion. 6. Oprating and monitoring all programs. Managmnt changs will normally b aimd at improving th fficincy and ffctivnss of ths functions. Th rlationships among goals and objctivs just dscribd ar sum marizd in Figur 1. This figur shows how goal-basd planning can work at all lvls of th organization. t shows that goals, appropriatly dfind as outcoms of th thr major sys tm functions, can clarify what all programs ar xpctd to produc, thus making valuation and improv mnt possibl throughout th organi zation. ontrols support and ducational programs through sub ordinat officrs. f a managr wishs to mak changs in an instructional program or support program, h or sh must do so through m ommunicatd to (and oftn dvlopd cooprativly with) school principals or support srvic hads, who must thn st p signd to carry out thir intnt. Th p s statd arlir, should b an xplicit plan, stating procdurs, tasks, timlins, costs, and outcoms (goals) to b influncd by th chang. Th budgt of th suprin tndnt's offic normally carris no funds for program chang. Th budgts of th schools and a st of support srvics usually will. How vr, managrs can (and should) initiat th dirction and convy th urgncy of dsird chang through th stting of managmnt objctivs. Ths will rflct th prioritis of th suprintndnt and board of duca tion, and of managrs at lowr lvls. an xprss intnt to chang or improv pro grams within ach of th thr major functions of managmnt, support, and instruction. Exampls ar: To strngthn cntral planning and valuation (managmnt func tion). To provid school principals and tachrs accurat masurs of indi vidual achivmnt in th basic skills subjcts, and rports showing growth of class and grad lvl groups from fall to fall (support function). To rviw and improv th sci nc program in grads four-to-six (instruction function). Philosophic diffrncs can aris within school systms rgarding th 608 EDUCATONAL LEADERSHP
rol of managmnt at ach lvl (district, sub-district, school) in ini tiating and dictating th charactr of dsird improvmnts. Obviously, if a suprintndnt and board assum aggrssiv rols in stting manag mnt objctivs, it lavs littl tim and rsourc lway for initiativ at lowr lvls. Building managrs (principals) must translat managmnt objctivs from all highr lvls into program changs within thir schools. Th ffct on principals of this "pyramid ing" of prioritis is an inadquatly xplord aspct of administrativ thory and practic. As indicatd arlir, thr ar four lvls of organization at which it is usful to stat ducational goals: s nd d h board of ducation is rsponsibl for approving statmnts of outcoms at th district lvl. Such goal statmnts should: 1. B sufficintly gnral to n compass all dsird larning outcoms within rlativly fw statmnts 2. B xprssd in trms of larn ings srving th dual nds of th individual and socity 3. Provid clar dirction to cur riculum plannrs in stablishing pro grams and dfining curricular goals. A scond lvl goal is rquird to laborat th maning of ach systm goal. Such goals, which w arbitrarily call c hould: 1. B sufficintly comprhnsiv to provid for th full implmntation of district goals 2. B dvlopd within th xist ing structur of subjct filds (math matics, scinc, physical ducation) 3. B sufficintly prcis to pro vid a basic rfrnc for formulating th goals of courss and othr units of ducational xprinc. Curriculum lvl goals may b formulatd by spcialists at th dis trict, ara, or vn school lvl, but probably at only on of ths. t should b notd that goal labo ration from Systm to Curriculum Lvls carris with it no rquirmnt for dsigning ducational xprincs. Th final two lvls may b rfrrd to as th implmnting lvls, for it is hr that curriculum goals ar translatd into mor spcific goals which suggst how instruction should b organizd and what rsourcs will b rquird. h third lvl of goal spcification must provid th basis for organizing du cational xprincs within schools. At this point, curriculum lvl goals will undrgo both an laboration of dtail and a diffrntiation in trms of studnt charactristics (ag, ability, and intrst). Typically, ths will b th larning goals of courss (high school and dpartmntalizd lmn tary schools) and of aras of instruc tion (nondpartmntalizd or nongradd lmntary schools). Cours lvl ducational goals should: 1. B at a lvl of gnrality that prmits all outcoms of a cours to b dscribd in rlativly fw (about 15-25) statmnts 2. B sufficintly spcific that cri tria for indicating thir attainmnt can b idntifid 3. Rprsnt knowldg, skills, or valus to b acquird, not rsourcs and mthods usd to achiv thm. n many cass, courss ar bound within th covrs of a txtbook and goals ar takn for grantd. Or school systms dvlop curriculum guids or instructional units containing goals and larning xprincs. n nithr cas ar goals consistntly drivd from highr lvl goals. Thus it may fairly b said that district lvl stat mnts of purpos and philosophy hav not, as a rul, xrtd a dirct and powrful influnc on instruc tional planning or th slction of larning matrials at th cours and daily instruction lvls. f district and curriculum goals ar to srv this guiding and dircting function, thr must b a dirct lin from th district to th classroom lvls of planning. h final stp, translating cours goals into instructional goals, must blong to th tachr, who ^o plan not only what building blbcks of larning will lad th studnt to achiv ach cours goal, but who must, ach day in th classroom, achiv as many concomitant goals as possibl. This final act of curriculum dsign cannot b prmptd at a highr lvl bcaus thr is no way th nds of studnts and strngths of th tachr in a givn classroom can b fully anticipatd. Figur 1 illustrats th rlationship among various lvls of goals in mathmatics. t also shows how ths lvls of goal dfinition rlat to "b havioral objctivs" and "prform anc objctivs." Goal-basd planning (lik PPBS and Managmnt by Objctivs bfor it), is a logical concpt that suffrs from ovrsimplification. For practical ap plication of ths concpts in th ral world, th trms usd must b ad quatly dfind and diffrntiatd. Th distinctions prsntd hr ar intndd to bring ordr and logic to th trminology of goal-basd plan ning. Thy rcogniz that goals nd to b diffrntiatd according to th functions of a school systm (manag mnt, support, instruction); that goals (program outcoms) nd to b dif frntiatd from objctivs (stat mnts of intnt to chang program lmnts in spcifid ways to mor ffctivly or fficintly achiv pro gram outcoms); and that ducational goals nd to hav th sam ssntial charactr but diffrnt lvls of gn rality to suit th rquirmnts of planning at th systm, curriculum, cours, and daily instructional lvls. Som commonly usd trms such as "bhavioral objctivs," "prform anc objctivs," and "goal indica tors" ar not a part of this systm of trminology. Th first two (as shown in Figur 1) ar bttr suitd to spci fying conditions undr which larning is dmonstratd than thy ar to stat ing larning outcoms. "Goal indica tors" is a loos trm that should b droppd. Thr ar many problms facing anyon wishing to mak goal-basd planning work in school systms. Struggling with inconsistnt and con fusd trminology dos not hav to b on of thm. 610 EDUCATONAL LEADERSHP
Typ of Coal Statd by: Evaluatd (Assssd) by: Mthod of Evaluation (Assssmnt) Action s y s m Managmnt Goals (Statd as manag mnt functions) Support goals (Statd as srvics to dsignatd rcip int groups) Suprintndnt Support Srvic Hads Board of Education Rcipints of srv ics statd in sup port goals (rsults rviwd by suprintndnt) ntrviw, instrumnts Rating forms, othr instru mnts Suprintndnt prpars managmnt objctivs indicating prioritis for improvmnt of manag mnt functions. Suprintndnt prpars managmnt objctivs indicating prioritis for improving support srvics. Support srvic hads prpar program chang objctivs showing proposd changs, rationals, mthods, costs. L V Educational goals (Statd as larning outcoms at systm, curriculum lvls) Curriculum pr sonnl (advisd by community, approvd by Board of Education) District masur mnt program (rsults rviwd by suprintndnt support staff) Survy lvl achivmnt tsts Suprintndnt or lin staff issu managmnt objctivs indicating prioritis for improvd attainmnt of ducational goals. Principals and support srvics hads prpar program chang objctivs showing proposd mthods of improving instructional programs in rspons to district prioritis. S c h o 0 L V Managmnt goals (Statd as manag mnt functions) Support goals (Statd as srvics to dsignatd rcip int groups) Educational goals (Statd as larning outcoms at th cours lvl) Principal School profs sional staff (larg schools); principal (small schools) Tachr plan ning groups (grad lvl, subjct) Lin administrator to whom rspon sibl Dsignatd rcip ints of srvics; principal District masur mnt program; tachr valuativ procdurs Visitations, instrumnts, intrviws Rating forms, othr instru mnts; staff discussions Survy lvl achivmnt tsts; unit tsts (commr cial and tachr-mad' Rcord plans for improvmnt on formal principal valuation form. Follow-up discussions by principal and administrator. Principals and support staff prpar program chang objctivs showing proposd improvmnts in srvics, rationals, procdurs, costs. Principals and tachrs prpar program chang objctivs showing proposd mthods of improv ing instruction in rspons to school as wll as district prioritis. C a s r o o m V 1 Managmnt goals (Statd as instruc tional and pupil managmnt func tions) Support goals (Not formally statd at class room lvl) Educational goals (Statd as instruc tional outcoms of daily planning) Form usd for tachr valua tion Not statd Tachr Principal-tachr Not formally valuatd Tachr Obsrvation, discussion, formal tachr valuation procdur Daily obsrva tion, tsting Rcord plans for improvmnt as part of formal tachr valuation. Follow-up discussions by tachr and principal. Daily planning, diagnosis, prscription. MAY 1981 611
Copyright 1981 by th Association for Suprvision and Curriculum Dvlopmnt. All rights rsrvd.