Jonathan's article on goals and focus that first appeared in the Connecticut ASCD journal in 2005

1. By Jonathan P. Costa, Sr.
Step up to the podium at a staff meeting and announce that the Board of Education and
the Superintendent have decided that the district should embark on a comprehensive strategic
planning and goal setting process. Watch carefully as most teacher eyes roll toward the ceiling
and listen for the collective exasperate groan. While understandable given the effort needed to
embark on such a process, this perspective is problematic because if done properly, strategic
planning and effective goal setting really can change the course of your educational institution
for the better.
In the business world, where the singularity of the profit imperative helps provide a
guiding focus, strategic planning is a proven strategy for getting ahead of the curve and
repositioning the organization to ensure future competitiveness. This focus and realignment,
the most important byproducts of good planning, are the critical foundational ingredients for
any successful improvement process.
So, if good planning is such a well recognized platform for positive change, why is
success in this endeavor so rare in schools? For educators, I believe the problem begins with
purpose setting. Because educational institutions have seen their roles in society expand so
dramatically over the last 100 years, when we write missions and visions, the end product is
often a generic, wide-open “do everything for everyone” statement. While befitting an
organization that values inclusion, these statements unfortunately then lead to goals that are
similarly inclusive and can be summarized as “it is our goal to improve everything for
everyone all of the time.”
When a staff tries to implement such overwhelming goals, they usually give a valiant
effort in the plan’s enthusiastic aftermath, but they are soon consumed with coping with the
complexity of trying to accomplish impossible tasks (Harvard Business Review, 1998). These
well intentioned but wholly unrealistic plans soon collapse under their own weight. They are
abandoned because everyone understands they cannot be accomplished even with double the
available resources.
1

2. Additionally, when an organization tries to do everything better, it usually ends up
doing nothing as well as it would like. Universal plans with broadly stated goals designed to
keep everyone happy are politically expedient but inevitably lead the planning process to an
inglorious end. My experience with school planning suggests that it truly is as Peter Drucker
famously stated it; “One goal is a goal, two goals are half a goal, and three goals are no goals at
all.”
This is far from a new idea. In the early 1900’s Wilfred Pareto wrote about his 20/80
rule. Pareto observed that in almost every system he tracked, a few vital causes (20%) drove
most of the results (80%) in that system. In other words, in a list of 5 potential planning goals,
there is just one key goal would achieve 80% of the total available improvements.
In a school setting, Mike Schmoker, completed an excellent synthesis of the educational
applications of this issue in his book Results, presenting 5 major studies that all reached the
same conclusion (page 61). As Schmoker sums it up, “our zeal to improve may lead to one of
the gravest mistakes we can make: taking on more than we can manage.” Certainly, as the
focus is divided, the inertia for change dissipates with the focus.
To avoid this downfall, several area school districts have successfully been able to base
their planning processes on just one clear and measurable goal aligned with a core student
achievement competency. By anchoring the process to one specific student learning indicator
the organization has a framework to unite all of the various competing interests that exist in
the public school environment.
This is admittedly an act of planning courage that requires a steadfast belief in the
wisdom of “less is more.” Fortunately, there are enough examples of success using this
approach to demonstrate its incontrovertible success. The previously mentioned Results from
Mike Schmoker tells the story of dozens of districts that created enormous gains in student
performance by focusing their efforts on a single critical area of measurable and observable
skill achievement.
In his book Making the Grade, Harvard’s Tony Wagner profiles the astonishing
improvements made by PS 198 in New York City’s 2nd District. Led by Anthony Alverado,
inner-city PS 198 moved from 13th in the region for literacy achievement to 2nd, trailing only a
2

3. suburban community for the highest ranking. The change came as a result of a five year
commitment to one literacy goal. Essentially every improvement resource, every piece of data,
all professional development and teacher conversations for that entire time period were
focused on that one topic (Wanger, pg. 142).
Many in the business world have shown similar results in their fields with identical
approaches. Two of the best selling management books of the last 25 years, The Goal by
Eliyahu Goldratt and From Good to Great by Jim Collins, both spend chapters exploring the
phenomenon of increased performance based on a laser like focus on a single area of
measurable improvement. As Collins observed; “The good-to-great companies understood
that doing what you are good at will only make you good; focusing on what you can [one
thing] potentially do better than any other organization is the only path to greatness.” (Collins,
pg. 100).
Even in the face of this overwhelming evidence from both the business and education
communities that this strategy works, picking just one achievement goal can seem like
jumping out of a plane without a parachute. And truthfully, there is some risk. If the wrong
goal is chosen, one without the necessary importance, the one goal experiment will certainly
end badly.
But if the selection is an area of such weight that no teacher can plausibly believe that
they are exempt from applying the selected skill in their own classrooms, than this strategy
will work. There are not many skills that rise to this level of importance. Comprehension,
written expression, critical thinking, and problem solving are all examples of key skill sets that
fit this description and that should be present in all content areas. With skills like these, if
districts can help their students master and apply them, they will, and can, be successful in
most any endeavor.
The importance of measurement of student achievement being the centerpiece of the
“one goal strategy” cannot be overstated. The research by those who have written about this
topic, Schmoker, Wagner, and others all agree that if the goal that is selected cannot be
measured, it will not drive improvement. Anytime a school allows success to be determined
by what adults do and not by observable student achievement, there simply is not the needed
3

4. leverage to push the change process along. It is the data representing student performance
that allows for the accountability and continuous improvement of learning that is the point of
the process to begin with.
This does present a unique data challenge. While external assessments like state tests
are reliable, they often are not completely aligned with the stated goal and are never timely
enough to help districts with strategic decision making. Using only state test data is like
driving through the rear-view mirror. However, because comprehensive and reliable local
skill assessment data is a new challenge for many, much of the early work in an effort like this
needs to be dedicated to collecting or creating the assessment data base needed upon which to
make good systemic improvement decisions.
In Avon, Connecticut where the goal is critical thinking, the district has embarked on an
effort to build an evidence profile or “dashboard” so that staff and the Board of Education
have a common performance language to discuss the success of their improvement efforts. In
Regional District #10, the focus is analysis, evaluation and taking a critical stance a similar
assessment project is underway. In my own district of Litchfield, Connecticut we have
committed to one district-wide comprehension goal and have started the process of aligning
our K-12 assessment standards and practices so we all have a common understanding of what
student success will look like throughout our system.
Focusing in this manner does not mean that all the other work of the district stops. The
point is that the improvement energy and resources are exclusively focused on the goal while
the day to day operations and functions continue. People throughout the system still have
their jobs and their individual responsibilities to program specific outcomes, but when it
comes to a district focus, they all have contributions and accountability for results in this one
area in common. They are not all doing everything the same, but they are having at least one
similar conversation.
This unified, one results-oriented goal approach leads to an important long-term
organizational benefit; the creation of a more stable system of school improvement. When
plans for improvement are based on adult focused strategies, they are almost always
transitory. Remember Madeline Hunter, MBO, or any number of other “next great things?”
4

5. Schools have long suffered from a “flavor of the month” strategy approach. The improvement
cynicism it creates (“just wait long-enough, and we will outlast it”) is the driving factor behind
the eye roll I mentioned at the start of this article.
Basing long-term planning on strategies is like having a comet at the center of your
school improvement universe. It shines brightly and gets everyone excited for a few weeks
but then the comet is off to other parts of the galaxy and everyone is left behind, waiting for
the next fast-moving school-improvement satellite.
Critical skill goals are different because they have mass and staying power. Can anyone
imagine a time when the ability to make good decisions based on provided information will
not have relevance to a student’s future success? Goals with mass have the ability to hold the
various objects in the school universe in their orbit (teacher evaluation, curriculum,
professional development), in essence keeping them stable and working together for years so
that the improvement efforts can have an impact over time. Schools here in the region that
have committed are already seeing organizational benefits that they are sure will translate into
improved student performance.
In Hampden-Wilbraham Massachusetts, former Connecticut superintendent Dr. Paul
Gagliarducci spoke of his district’s singular writing goal in his opening remarks to the staff
this year. “This is an exciting time for us because we have the opportunity to work together as
a PreK-12 unit toward this very important [writing] goal. As we go through this process we
continue to improve the overall culture of HWRSD. Our collegiality, support, and
understanding of one another are critical to our writing success and beyond.”
Superintendent of the Avon Public Schools in Avon, Connecticut, Dr. Richard Kisiel,
sees his district’s commitment to a higher-order thinking goal in a similar light. “A single
achievement goal keeps the organization focused on priorities. A clear and singular focus will
keep all members of the organizations energized and working toward one common purpose.”
The question is not whether or not focus on a single goal will help to anchor a
successful performance improvement and planning process. It will. The real issue is whether
or not your district has the wherewithal to actually commit to it and to carry it through to its
5

6. logical conclusion. Doing so will take constancy of purpose, dedication to the goal over the
long-term, and the ability to focus the conversation indefinitely on one improvement topic.
Leaders who have done it speak of the difficulty of the task and the huge collective
effort required to maintain the momentum of the change process. There is no doubt, that the
one goal approach has great potential for improving student learning but is also tremendously
hard work that must be attended to for an extended period of time. This relationship between
effort and success should not come as a surprise. Have you ever known anything of value that
did not require a similar commitment?
Jonathan P. Costa, Sr. is the former Vice Chair of the Litchfield Board of Education in Litchfield,
Connecticut and was a self-employed education consultant for 10 years. He currently is the Director of
School/Program Services for the EDUCATION CONNECTION, the regional educational service
center of northwestern Connecticut.
Resources:
Collins, Jim, (2001). Good to Great. New York, New York; HarperCollins Publishers Inc..
Cox, Jeff and Goldgratt, Eliyahu M., (1984) The Goal. Great Barrington,
Massachusetts; North River Press.
Hall, Gene E. and Hord, Shirley M. (2001) Implementing Change. Needham Heights,
Massachusetts; Allyn and Bacon,.
Harvard Business Review on Change. (July, 1998) Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Schmoker, Mike, (1996) Results. Alexandria, Virginia; ASCD.
Wagner, Tony, (2002). Making the Grade. New York, New York; RoutledgeFalmer.
6

7. logical conclusion. Doing so will take constancy of purpose, dedication to the goal over the
long-term, and the ability to focus the conversation indefinitely on one improvement topic.
Leaders who have done it speak of the difficulty of the task and the huge collective
effort required to maintain the momentum of the change process. There is no doubt, that the
one goal approach has great potential for improving student learning but is also tremendously
hard work that must be attended to for an extended period of time. This relationship between
effort and success should not come as a surprise. Have you ever known anything of value that
did not require a similar commitment?
Jonathan P. Costa, Sr. is the former Vice Chair of the Litchfield Board of Education in Litchfield,
Connecticut and was a self-employed education consultant for 10 years. He currently is the Director of
School/Program Services for the EDUCATION CONNECTION, the regional educational service
center of northwestern Connecticut.
Resources:
Collins, Jim, (2001). Good to Great. New York, New York; HarperCollins Publishers Inc..
Cox, Jeff and Goldgratt, Eliyahu M., (1984) The Goal. Great Barrington,
Massachusetts; North River Press.
Hall, Gene E. and Hord, Shirley M. (2001) Implementing Change. Needham Heights,
Massachusetts; Allyn and Bacon,.
Harvard Business Review on Change. (July, 1998) Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Schmoker, Mike, (1996) Results. Alexandria, Virginia; ASCD.
Wagner, Tony, (2002). Making the Grade. New York, New York; RoutledgeFalmer.
6