The Solution

The source for the initial communication is Ms. Booker herself, with the stated purpose of developing and presenting a strategic plan to facilitate ongoing and future communication. Her message is encoded in two ways: the actual typing of this document, and the motor skills she employs (facial movements, vocal cords, kinesthetics) when she verbally presents the plan to Ms. Burns.The message is the strategic plan itself as developed by Ms. Booker. While the Shannon-Weaver model disregards, to an extent, some of the complexities of communication such as context and field of experience for both receiver and source, Ms. Booker is confident that the clear meaning and message behind her well thought out plan are not liable to be misinterpreted, and that while some of the particulars within the plan itself may be debatable, the initiative will be most welcome by the principal. Because she has always had a good relationship with Ms. Burns and cordial and constructive discussions in the past, she has no reason to believe that her message will not be received as intended, without any significant distortion.
Ms. Booker uses both visual (the plan itself) and verbal (her discussion with Ms. Burns) channels to present her message, a strategy whereby each reinforces the other. She takes care to limit the amount ofphysical noise in the communication process. She presents her document in a clean yet stylish format, with a readable font and few distracting graphics. She has proofed and edited her material to express only the most essential points to her plan and to limit any confusion or information overload. In addition, in her face to face meeting, she chooses an afterschool hour where they can meet quietly in the library without interruption. Semantic noise is also considered by Ms. Booker. Is there anything in Ms. Burns that might unduly prejudice or influence her reception of this message? By furnishing a copy of her document in advance of their meeting, Ms. Booker gives Ms. Burns a chance to familiarize herself with the plan, to be able to better focus in person, with less distraction or confusion as to its contents. She is careful to use much of the language and jargon already present in the schoolwide strategic plan, maximizing the use of a familiar, common code. She invites Ms. Burns to open the meeting with any comments to help her guide her own assumptions on how best to proceed.
Ms. Burns clearly has the decoder to translate this message, because Ms. Booker has taken into account the common jargon they share, with references to the schoolwide strategic plan, and a knowledge of and familiarity with the issues presented. As colleagues they share a similar working environment, and Ms. Booker feels confident, based upon her past dealings with Ms. Burns, a similar ethic of responsibility toward improving the operations of the school. She does not anticipate that Ms. Burns, as receiver, will have any difficulty in decoding her message, having taken pains to ensure its clarity.
Ms. Burns will provide feedback to Ms. Booker, and this message will again be encoded, sent out through channels, noise, etc. This circular communication process will continue as the plan itself takes shape. Because of the relatively uncomplicated nature of this initial step, the presentation of the plan by Ms. Booker to Ms. Burns, the Shannon-Weaver model is a good choice. Meaning is not likely to be misinterpreted (and may be of no issue whatsoever), but the emphasis on physical and semantic noise and the appropriateness of the decoder to the message, and the receiver to the source, are well considered.