The effective school has a clearly articulated mission. The staff shares an understanding and commitment to the mission and the instructional goals, priorities, and assessment procedures it projects. The staff accepts responsibility and accountability for promoting and achieving the mission of learning for all students.

In the effective school there is a clearly articulated school mission through which the staff shares an understanding of and commitment to the instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures and accountability. Staff accept responsibility for students’ learning of the school’s essential curricular goals.

In the first generation the effective school mission emphasized teaching for Learning for All. The two issues that surfaced were: Did this really mean all students or just those with whom the schools had a history of reasonable success? When it became clear that this mission was inclusive of all students especially the children of the poor (minority and non-minority), the second issue surfaced. It centered itself around the question: Learn what? Partially because of the accountability movement and partially because of the belief that disadvantaged students could not learn higher-level curricula, the focus was on mastery of mostly low-level skills.

In the second generation, the focus will shift toward a more appropriate balance between higher-level learning and those more basic skills that are truly prerequisite to their mastery. Designing and delivering a curriculum that responds to the demands of accountability, and is responsive to the need for higher levels of learning, will require substantial staff development. Teachers will have to be better trained to develop curricula and lessons with the “end in mind.” They will have to know and be comfortable with the concept of “backward mapping,” and they will need to know “task analysis.” These “tools of the trade” are essential for an efficient and effective “results-oriented” school that successfully serves all students.

Finally, a subtle but significant change in the concept of school mission deserves notice. Throughout the first generation, effective schools proponents advocated the mission of teaching for Learning for All. In the second generation the advocated mission will be Learning for All. The rationale for this change is that the “teaching for” portion of the old statement created ambiguity (although this was unintended) and kept too much of the focus on “teaching” rather than “learning.” This allowed people to discount school learning that were not the result of direct teaching. Finally, the new formulation of Learning for All opens the door to the continued learning of the educators as well as the students.