Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Developing SPU's vision of educational leadership: Engaging the…
Developing SPU's vision of educational leadership: Engaging the Culture, Using the Language of the Culture, Defining Distinctive Mission, Vision, and Values
SPU
Core Themes
2017-2018
"We have adopted three Core Themes to guide us as we engage the culture and help to bring about positive change in the world:"
"Academic Excellence and Relevance" :<3:
"Transformative and Holistic Student Experience" :<3:
"Vital Christian Identity and Purpose" :<3:
How do secular business practices inform this Christian organization’s definition of “mission,” “vision,” “values” and “commitments”? :red_flag: :question:
Or should it just use this language because that is the convention for how 21st century organizations describe themselves? :red_flag: :question:
How stable are these values and commitments? :red_flag: :question:
In other words, should this organization be willing to critique or expose the assumptions upon which this (typical corporate) language and the worldview/mindset that is associated with it rest? :red_flag: :question:
Signature Commitments
**2014-2015
"Seattle Pacific University will be a place that …
masters the tools of rigorous learning and is a vibrant intellectual community;
embraces the Christian story, becoming biblically and theologically literate;
understands and engages our multicultural and complex world; and
values the centrality of character formation in the life of the individual."**
Corporate/business definition of commitment (synonymous with “intention” or “value” but more malleable than commitment defined as a permanent covenant (In a bacon and eggs breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.)? :red_flag: :question:
Seem to have been changed between 2014-2015 and replaced by "Core Themes"? :red_flag: :question:
Vision
"Engaging the Culture, Changing the World"
Which culture? The dominant one in which it exists? :red_flag: :question:
Mission
"Christian university fully committed to engaging the culture and changing the world by graduating people of"
"competence" :<3:
"character" :<3:
"wisdom" :<3:
"grace-filled community" :<3:
:SPU governs SOE
SOE
Vision
"The vision of the Seattle Pacific University School of Education is to influence the region, the nation, and the world through the equipping of educational leaders for public and private schools. "
If “mission statements” typically present purpose and “vision statements” present specific objectives, why is mission statement presented after vision statement on SOE’s website? :red_flag: :question:
Mission
Echoes language in SPU mission statement :
“to equip educators for service and leadership in schools and communities by developing their professional competence and character, to make a positive impact on learning”
Four Commitments
Leadership:<3:
create and support principle-based ideas
accomplish tasks in group situations
help teams work toward goals
motivate and direct others
manage goals to completion
Service:<3:
servant leadership
vocation
service learning
Competence:<3:
excellence/ mastery in planning/delivering instruction
use of technology to support learning of all/diverse students
job/role competencies
Character:<3:
heart for service necessary
strong personal values
inseparable from teaching/learning
implicit ethical standards for professional educators
Are the commitments/themes here meant to correspond with:1. the bullet points in the SPU mission statement? 2. the SPU "signature commitments"? 3. the SPU "core themes"? :red_flag: :question:
Using mission, vision and value statements to manipulate public perception is a common trait of “the culture.” Could/should SPU’s language be more transparent than it is and less typical of “the culture”? :red_flag: :question:
Statement that both SOE and SPU’s mission statements share a common commitment to “themes” based on Micah 6.8 (though the anchoring of these themes in this command/commission is not explicitly stated on the website displaying the former) implies that the themes precede the mission statements. Yet the themes seem fairly recent, as does the language “we have adopted.” When were they created? :red_flag: :question:
Reference of commitment to the professional and personal growth of graduates seems to imply ongoing commitment to graduates after graduation? :question:
SOE avoids the term "career," instead indicating that it and its graduates seek community impact/service/leadership and vocation, not just vocational training. :smiley:
Focus is on preparing servant leaders for K-12 rather than K-16 community. :red_flag:
DEL
DEL Mission:
"Prepare individuals for competence, character, service, and leadership as digital education leaders in K-12 and higher education settings."
Philosophy/Purpose Statements are part of mission
Why are philosophy and purpose not articulated separately? :question: :red_flag:
• Educate in the theory and research of educational technology
• Develop excellence in the professional use of knowledge and skills that facilitate teaching and learning with technology for all teachers and students
• Experience ongoing direct application of teaching, learning, and serving in an digital education context
• Integrate digital citizenship and Biblical principles such as honesty, integrity, compassion, patience, self-discipline, mercy, grace, reconciliation, commitment, service, and community
• Build a professional learning network of educators who will continue to support each other in fulfilling the mission of service and leadership in their schools, communities, and the world
Philosophy/Purpose Statements are similar to “Student Learning Outcomes” or “Standards” in that they begin with a verb (some but not all of which are measurable and listed on Blooms’ Revised Taxonomy) :red_flag:
Graduate Goals
Leadership
Communication Skills
Foundational Knowledge and Skills
Analysis and Problem Solving
Conform to CAEP Standards :question:
Professionalism
Impact on Student Learning
Faculty modeling is a value :smiley:
Although typically a "mission" statement would subsume every category beneath it ("vision," "values," etc.), it is easier to use separate streams to represent these categories here, since these seem to sometimes fluctuate (e.g. change from emphasis on "signature commitments" to "core themes" and SOE's placement of "vision" before "mission" on its web page)