We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Preamble, United States Constitution

The Preamble to the US Constitution defines what the framers were trying to do. It explains why we need a central government for the otherwise free and independent states, and it outlines five basic goals that define the purpose of the Federal government. “We’re trying to come up with a way for the people to govern themselves. We’re not sure we’ve got it all right, but this is what we’re aiming for.” It’s a mission statement for the US Federal Government.

Imagine how different our country would be if we used the Preamble to drive our executive and legislative priorities. “Senator, can you please explain how your bill aligns with and supports the Preamble? I’m afraid I can’t support a measure that restricts the liberties of Americans or applies justice inequitably to protect the tranquility of a few.”

It certainly wouldn’t solve all of our problems. Remember that the word “ourselves,” taken in context, could be interpreted to mean “rich white guys.” But if America is actually about liberty and justice for all, using the Preamble as a litmus test for government initiatives would be a good place to start.

When Ginni Rometty was trying to redefine IBM in the 2010s, she had to wade through a century of culture and tradition to the core of what IBM is. Why are we here? What makes IBM IBM? She needed to figure out what gave the company its identity, and which elements of its business, culture, and priorities were indispensable components of that identity. They determined that IBM is an innovative, enterprise technology services company. They understand big data, and computing requirements of large organizations. They focus on customer service at the enterprise level, and they explore new technologies to meet the rising challenges of industry.

That meant that there were aspects of IBM’s business that did not align with that central mission. And those components had to go. IBM is not a consumer products company. So they stopped making products for the consumer market. IBM’s specialty is business solutions, not hardware innovation. So they shuttered their processor design and manufacturing divisions. IBM’s focus is not on maximizing shareholder value. So they changed the unreasonable expectations for short term shareholder growth in favor of more long-term strategies focused on research and development. They changed their design approach to focus on the customer experience first, instead of starting with the underlying technology and then figuring out how to shoehorn that into customers’ business needs. They adopted the Agile methodology to better manage processes and large projects in an efficient manner. A lot of things changed in a very short time at IBM, and they took a lot of heat for those changes. But at the end of the decade, they were a stronger, more resilient company that remained true to their core values.

When I look at schools, I see extreme pressure. There are a lot of people telling us what to do right now. They’re angry, and they’re vocal, and they often contradict one another (and themselves). We seem to want next generation innovative thinkers, who can analyze and synthesize disparate ideas and collaboratively combine them in new ways to solve challenging problems, and articulate those solutions in a compelling way. But we also want cursive writing and flash cards. We want students to be able to find, filter, assess, apply, and cite information they find online, identifying bias, applying logic and reason, and drawing their own conclusions. But we also want to make sure they don’t have access to information that challenges their parents’ religious, cultural, or political beliefs or biases because their own conclusions might differ from ours. We want students to move beyond simply memorizing facts, but we continue to emphasize school improvement measures that focus on information recall.

We want students to use technology so they can be prepared for the 21st century digital society in which we find ourselves. But we only want them to use that technology to do the same things we did as students in school. Access textbooks online instead of in print. Take notes on a Chromebook or iPad instead of in a notebook. Complete online tests, so they’re automatically graded and reported. When they start using the technology do to new things in innovative ways, we get really uncomfortable. We start banning things (calculators, Wikipedia, Youtube, student email, social networking tools, digital recording devices, ChatGPT) that allow students to more easily complete the tasks we give them. But we’re really slow to redefine those tasks.

I think it’s time to go back to the mission. What is it that makes public school public school? What are the characteristics of our institutions that are non-negotiable? Maybe the missions need to be revisited. I know that in some schools, they haven’t been examined in a long time. In others, they reflect the priorities of a minority of well-meaning but long-departed leaders. Maybe they’re fine the way they are, but they just need to be validated. Either way, knowing who we are and who we want to be is the first step in navigating the challenges that are coming.

Once we know who we are, we can look at our current practices, policies, and initiatives to see what aligns with our identity and what needs to be discontinued. We can’t keep adding new things without taking a critical look at the old things. If we make sure that our policies, priorities, initiatives, and responses to challenges all align in service of the mission, we can ensure our continued relevance.

If only we could get the government to do that too.