Why Can't We? Policy and Permission May Be Responsible

The fact that we haven't achieved universal literacy should be justification enough to do whatever it takes to make it so.  But, it hasn't to date.  In fact, the reality of failed learning as well as the failure to learn causal to literacy has for the most part eluded the best of intentions by educators, best of innovative products, programs, and services, and for so many have led to the conclusion that it will never be achieved.  Why?

Recently I was asked that very question, “Why haven’t we achieved universal literacy”?

My non-dissertation response was two things – Policy and Permission!

Policy needs to change to “suspend” certain requirements to focus on literacy – the use of time being chief among these.  Additionally, permission must be given with respect to empowering educators to focus on literacy.  Educators individually and collectively need more than responsibility and accountability for results; they need the authority to make the necessary decisions in all things and in all ways to ensure universal literacy. 

Though at first read my response may appear over simplistic but it really isn’t.

Taking a closer look as to why we haven't been successful will reveal not a conspiracy, not a lack of will or caring, not a lack of effort, nor a lack of resources.  Rather, the most contributing factor to our inability to eradicate illiteracy is the lack of implementation fidelity – our inability to effectively and efficiently implement programming, practices, products or services to ensure literacy is more or less attributed to policy and permission.  

Here are three questions to consider:

First, to what extent do schools and school systems assess for the capacity, competence, and confidence to implement effective literacy instruction?  

Second, to what degree do schools and school systems map current literacy initiatives in an effort to determine if and to what extent initiatives compete for resources, conflict with one another, or send confusing messages about priorities?  

Third, to what extent do schools and school systems assess mission creep, vision clarity, and sustainability of current or planned literacy initiative implementations?

I confess that to some the aforementioned questions contain terms or concepts not generally associated with schools.  However, they should.  The reality that they are not is in part the problem.  For example, "mission creep".  Most organizations especially private sector know and understand that their mission integrity is critical for focus, alignment, results, product or service quality, customer service, client care, brand management and managing the brand the experience to name just a few.  

Public sector too often assumes mission integrity for a variety of reasons.  However, mission creep creates significant variance, disconnect, and dysfunction.  To be fair, mission creep is directly reflective of policy and permission or lack of. 

As the aforementioned questions suggest, mandates masked as policy, add never subtract expectations, requirements, or demands that more often or not create frustration, confusion, and conflict with the mission.  In concert, permission to abandon seldom if ever is given to empower educators to align as well as focus effective instruction, practices, and programming to ensure literacy.

The answer to all three questions is at best inconsistent and at worse, not very effective.  Most educators are not trained in implementation intelligence.  Providers of products, services and programs for education know how their particular solution is to be implemented.  However, more often or not this is singular and not within the context of myriad initiatives a school or school system are attempting to implement simultaneously.  

Ensuring literacy?  The step that must be taken is to assess what I am calling implementation intelligence.  In the weeks ahead, I will unpack implementation intelligence in much greater detail.  For now, let me suggest that "mission creep" is a first step.  

Let this question provoke your thinking just a bit - can each individual in your organization recite your literacy plan?  

Moreover, if each individual in your organization were accused of living your organization’s literacy plan, what evidence would be presented to convict him or her of such a crime?