An Organization That Makes a Difference: The International Alliance for Invitational Education®

During the last few monthly blog posts, we have examined Elements 1-4 of the Coherence Lab framework.   Element 1 of the framework emphasizes the need for Building Focus and Coordination. Element 2 examines the need to Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Element 3 sets the expectations for stakeholders to Change Behavior at Scale. Element 4 of the Coherence Framework encourages Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working.

Advocates of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Purkey, Novak & Fretz, 2020), readily see the correlation between the Coherence Lab’s framework and Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices. This correlation simply proves again that IE is not something more to add to one’s pedagogical plate. Invitational Education (IE) theory IS the plate!  As evidenced by its lack of attribution to any theoretical foundation, the Coherence Lab might suggest its framework is innovative. 

Yet, for over 40 years proponents of IE theory believed that through intentional invitations for vibrant and active interactions an intentionally, caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT) educational leader can systemically address institutional needs through an inventory of the entire network: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps), which influences the potential for success.

Although uncited, the Coherence Lab’s Framework readily integrates tenets of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey, 1992; Purkey & Novak, 2016). Frankly, this blog post can focus entirely on organizations that take an established theoretical foundation and repackage or rebrand previous tenets and assumptions as something new.  Although capitalism may be driven by greed, academia should always embrace ethics and integrity.

So, let’s discuss solutions. How can someone stand up for ethical practices and demand integrity?  Leaders can begin by intentionally invite stakeholders to become more knowledgeable.  Then encourage direct support for the institutions, alliances, or groups that exhibit research-based practices and theoretical foundations that make better possible. 

My journey as an educational leader led me to Invitational Education theory and practice, which then brought me to my first International Alliance for Invitational Education®(IAIE) World Conference in 2013. You will find the IAIE is a not-for-profit group of educators and allied professionals from throughout the world, dedicated to the development of positive school, work, and home environments as well as being opposed to those forces that demean and defeat human potential. Through IAIE membership, you are invited to learn how to intentionally create climates based on care, optimism, respect, and trust while networking with IAIE members internationally.  By joining the IAIE, you will receive: 

·         “Fundamentals of Invitational Education” (Purkey & Novak, 2016), 

·         The monthly Alliance newsletter,

·         Access to the Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice and the IAIE Abstracts.

·         Free participation in IE-themed webinars,

·         Discounted rates for the IAIE World Conference,

·         Information for how your school can earn an Inviting School Award,

·         A network of members engaging in Invitational Education research and practice.  

 An annual individual IAIE membership is $35.00.  Here are ways to join the Alliance:

·         MEMBERSHIP | IAIE (invitationaleducation.org) You can join with credit card or PayPal.

·         If you prefer to pay by check, make it payable to IAIE and mail to:

Tammy Baker, IAIE Manager;  PO Box 594.  Nicholasville, KY  40340. 

Email: tammy.baker@invitationaleducation.org

To learn more about Invitational Education theory and practice or the IAIE, please visit: ABOUT | IAIE (invitationaleducation.org)

School reform requires systemic change: A metamorphosis, based on systemic analysis of the people, places, policies, programs, and processes (the Five Ps). This structural analysis of school climate discerns whether any part of the whole is disinviting (Purkey & Siegel, 2013). IE research and documented practices exhibit how IE theory addresses “the total culture or ecosystem of almost any organization” (Purkey and Siegel, 2013, p. 104). While there is no quick fix for educational problems, the IE framework encourages ongoing vigilance before affirming sustained change (Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Strahan & Purkey, 1992). Vigilance is required because changing how a school operates requires transforming its people (Asbill, 1994).

During 2023, be resolute in your endeavor to model and nurture an intentionally inviting stance.  We must intentionally promote IE theory and practice in our demonstrated efforts to encourage the learning for all mission (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). We must lead others in the “direction and purpose for all Invitational thought and action” (Purkey & Novak, 2016, p 11).

Crucially, we must willingly teach others to extend intentional invitations. As proponents of IE theory, we know others are better served through empowering opportunities for achieving one’s human potential.  Therefore, encourage dialogue that promotes critical thinking and open-mindedness.  Willingly reject any exhibition of contempt, which merely destroys motivation and incites further division.  As champions of IE theory and practices we must always promote intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust (I-CORT) in all our educational, leadership, and interpersonal opportunities. 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (December 31, 2022). An Organization That Makes a Difference: The

            International Alliance for Invitational Education®. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of inviting principal

            practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Educational Management,

            New Mexico State University.

 Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

 Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Solution Tree Press.

Purkey, W.W. (1992). An introduction to invitational theory. Journal of Invitational theory and Practice 1(1), 5-15.

Purkey, W.W.., & Novak, J.M. (2016). An introduction to invitational theory. https://www.invitationaleducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/art_intro_to_invitational_theory-1.pdf

Purkey, W.W., Novak, J.M., & Fretz, J.R. (2020). Developing inviting schools: A beneficial framework for teaching. Teachers College Press.

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach   

            to professional and personal success. Humanics. Retrieved from:             http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Strahan, D., & Purkey, W. W. (1992). Celebrating diversity through invitational

            Education. The International Alliance for Invitational Education.

Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working

           Last month you were invited to reflect upon your teacher education or leadership programs. A guiding question in this regard asked you to consider how effectively did (does) your preparation programs concretely develop intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT)-driven educators capable (and willing) to embrace systemic models, promote cooperative learning, exhibit high expectations, utilize HOTS, and analyze data to monitor and adjust as needed? This month we examine Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

Reference the Coherence Lab framework chart (below) to review the first three elements needed to promote effective advocacy and systems change. Initially we emphasized Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. Last month we then examined Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Advocates of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016) appreciate Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale.  Invitational Education (IE) theory and practices believe that through intentional invitations for vibrant and active interactions an ICORT-driven educator systemically addresses institutional needs through an inventory of the entire network: People, places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the potential for success.

As proponents of the Coherence Framework move practitioners to Element 4, IE theory and practices is reinforced by the need to align our beliefs and values around equity through our mindsets and our actions. To encourage equitable ways of thinking, stakeholders need to reflect on their individual identity, acknowledge and address biases, and design at the margins resulting in a constellation of solutions that ultimately work for all stakeholders.

Equitable ways of working require framing the problem as a defined tool for equity rather than a statement that perpetuates inequity. Subsequent exploration of solutions can then intentionally invite people who most deeply experience the problem so their expertise can drive the solution finding process. Through a circular rather than a linear process, focus is placed upon what is learned as a measure of an initiative’s success.  Equitable systems, tools and culture can be developed despite the potential for risk or fear of failure.

However, when dysfunctional institutional inertia prevails and is consistently exhibited an organization either fails or refuses to take accept where the institution is compared to where its organizational mission states it should be heading. For instance, dysfunctional inertia continues to blame disengaged parents for student failure and poor school climate.  By contrast, strong and effective leadership humbly poises the question: “Is it reasonable to suggest many parents in low SES, urban school districts were previously students in that school district?”  Therefore, the culture of the community is that schools are a place of failure.  Education failed to free them of the bondage of poverty--as promised!  As a result, the opportunity gap chained these parents to the achievement gap.  When that becomes the prevailing cultural reality, then the potential for equity loses to systemic injustice.

The Coherence Framework (below) readily integrates tenets of Invitational Education theory and practices (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Likewise, Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011) readily integrates with Continuous Improvement Theory as a sustainable school improvement framework.  The continuous improvement management approach reinforces Deming’s Total Quality Management (TQM) system, comprised of 14 points posited as “essential for business success” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 33). 

A skillful educational leader begins developing an effective collaborative culture by understanding the interdependency of the improvement process rather than merely undertaking elemental processes for change. Leaders interested in promoting an equitable and truly collaborative learning culture must embrace this reality: It is not enough to want to change or need to change, to become enculturated within an organization, stakeholders must experience positive change. a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates non-negotiable goals to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (November 30, 2021). Element 4 of the Coherence Framework: Equitable ways

            of thinking and working. [Web log post] Retrieved from 

http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. APQC.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1),

24-27.

Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution

            Tree Press

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

Effective Advocacy for Change: Progress rather than perfection

          As we continue examining how to effectively advocate for inclusive education and the Learning for All Mission, reflect upon your previous efforts to establish non-negotiable goals (NNG) (Marzano & Waters, 2009). As requested last month, how did you rate your efforts to model effective collaboration?  What has been most difficult in removing identified obstacles to needed change? 

An effective leader recognizes when and how staff can work autonomously and collaboratively, thereby developing or removing staff as necessary, which promotes the culture of high expectations within the school (Eck & Goodwin, 2010).  Establishment of non-negotiable goals (NNGs) are a product of earlier collaboration.  Intentional invitations promote staff empowerment (Purkey & Novak, 2016).  Determination to collaborate, time to meet, willingness to ask serious questions, creation of an action plan, and always meeting with an agenda, promotes collaborative communication aligned to the established NNGs. 

Positive change can be the outcome of innovative thinking, willingness, humility, collaboration, and a collective vision grounded in a clearly-defined mission.  Unintended consequences, which often fall into the pool labeled “negative change,” typically ignore the characteristics connected with positive change.  In conclusion, leaders interested in promoting a collaborative learning culture must embrace this reality: It is not enough to want to change or need to change, to become enculturated within an organization, stakeholders must experience positive change.

Let’s return to the Coherence Lab framework chart (below) for envisioning effective advocacy and systems change. Previously we observed that the framework is divided into four elements.   Last month we emphasized Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. This month we will further examine Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships and Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale.

While building focus and coordination is an initial step toward coherence, lets agree that cultivating trusting relationships strengthens coherence by empowering everyone through choice and decision-making.  This requires profession development.  There are three core sub-elements of Cultivating Trusting relationships:

1.      Engage Authentically: Inviting leaders in education involve local stakeholders with varied experiences, perspectives and beliefs. When engaging with stakeholders, it's important to be transparent about the role and decision- making responsibility of stakeholders. It’s also important to approach each engagement with empathy. Engaging stakeholders with transparency and empathy exhibits intentional understanding of stakeholders’ needs, motivations and interests.

2.      Recognize and Address Power Dynamics: Intentional, empathic listening exhibits understanding when addressing individual identities and power dynamics, This is a key sub-element for building trusting relationships. Effective leaders recognize that power dynamics impact the way we engage with one another and make decisions. Rather than authority alone, power is often attributed due to cultural identity. It is therefore prudent to confront issues of identity and power to comfortably cede power in favor of more equitable and authentic engagements.

3.       Support Inclusion: Intentionally inviting leaders embrace the experiences of stakeholders and honor their expertise resulting from being in proximity to issues or problems needing to be addressed.

When seeking to apply Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale, intentionally inviting leaders believe greater student success is possible when educators utilize an intentionally caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (ICORT) mindset. Through intentional invitations for vibrant discussions and active interactions an ICORT-driven educator systemically addresses institutional needs through an inventory of the networks: People. places, policies, programs, and processes (5-Ps) that influence the potential for success. This intentional desire promotes collaboration,  exhibits critical, higher order thinking skills (HOTS), that appeals to emotions.  Well-defined ley outcomes allow valid analyzes through accessible, reliable data.  

Reflect upon your teacher education or leadership programs. How effectively did (does) your preparation programs concretely develop ICORT-driven educators capable (and willing) to embrace systemic models, promote cooperative learning, exhibit high expectations, utilize HOTS, and analyze data to monitor and adjust as needed? Let’s explore these points next month when we examine Element 4 of Coherence: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2021). Effective advocacy for change: Progress rather than

    perfection. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

Eck, J., & Goodwin, B. (2010). Autonomy for school leaders. School Administrator, 67(1),

24-27.

Fullan, M. & Quinn, J (2021). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,

and Systems (Pages 17-27; 47-53). Retrieved from

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgw1kds313QeA5G9vDSgPRCJqcoIMW1S/view

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

            correlates. Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution

            Tree Press

 Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed)

            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

http://invitationaleducation.net/product/category/books

How to Advocate for Inclusive Education and the Learning for All Mission

Before beginning this month's discussion, please reflect upon your commitment to welcoming and successfully educating all students. All means regardless of the students’ current abilities, gender, or socio-economic status. In this endeavor, consider the extent to which you empower your colleagues to develop high quality inclusive educational environments? What do you consistently model to promote professional learning communities in your school to develop inclusive opportunities, resources, school-based guidance and access to local and national best practices or experts? 

 Researching the most significant feature common to world-class schools, Lezotte and Snyder (2011) found a continual effort toward becoming “learning organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67). This was evidenced by a consistent exhibition of a clear vision leading toward the desired mission, commitment by all to learning for all, and sharing the responsibility for success of the mission.  These certainly appear to be the minimal culture exhibited by an effective school.

As we begin considering the power of effective advocacy, let’s agree that effective leaders exhibit the ability to inspire change despite facing complex bureaucracies, competing interests, lack of funds, and a range of stakeholder priorities. The ability to effectively advocate for focused change is increased through additional training or utilization of research-based action models.  While most action research approaches utilize a similar circular model, there are approaches designed to advocate for specific challenges.  For instance, the Coherence Lab's theory of action addresses the needs of historically marginalized people by: 

• Supporting educational leaders to coherently focus and collaborate on key priorities, cultivating trust amongst diverse stakeholders, and build intentional focus on equity within policy-making and decision-making processes.
• Developing teams of education systems leaders to develop solutions for complex problems and to scale or sustain inspiring and empowering change that support educator
• Identifying school leaders and teachers who share priorities and policies and are equipped to champion school-based continuous improvement and optimal student experiences and learning outcomes, especially for those who have been historically marginalized.

The Coherence Framework illustrated below exhibits the collective and interdependent elements supporting coherence-building.  Note, that as with most action-research approaches, the framework intentionally circular.  Coherence work is deeply interconnected and never ending.

As a tool for effective advocacy and systems change, observe that the framework is divided into four elements.  Element 1: Building Focus and Coordination. Element 2: Cultivate Trusting Relationships. Element 3: Change Behavior at Scale. Element 4: Equitable Ways of Thinking and Working. 

 

In the endeavor to “Build Focus and Coordination” effective advocates and systems change leaders should seek to establish (a few) priorities, model desired collaboration and remove obvious obstacles.

Effective advocates and systems change leaders seek to build a shared vision.  They identify, plan, model, the pursuit of clearly-defined priorities. They identify how attainment would be measured. They identify distractors, inefficiencies, or redundancies related to these priorities. They help others to know when to say no to these obstacles or barriers to clear alignment with to the identified priorities. Beginning with district leadership, a culture based on “defined autonomy” (Marzano & Waters, 2010, p. 8) communicates NNG to both the internal and external stakeholders.  Otherwise, change can be either slow, inconsistent, or nonexistent.

Effective advocates and systems change leaders create a culture of collaboration.  While difficult, collaboration must be more than aspirational.  By promoting a culture rooted in collaboration, effectiveness in this area is exhibited in the ability to differentiate between instances when communication or coordination are more powerful and necessary than collaboration. The development of an effective collaborative culture results from understanding and embracing the interdependency of the improvement process rather than merely undertaking elemental processes for change. 

Effective advocates and systems change leaders can identify and willingly address the systemic barriers, inertia, outdated tools and unresponsive processes that allow fragmentation to persist. Doing anything for the sake of compliance is seen as part of the problem.  Rather, effectiveness is exhibited by management that focuses upon the implementation and attainment of core priorities.

Educators benefit in a number of ways from working together to identify a clear, shared vision, developing a collaborative culture focusing on learning, engaging in collective inquiry, remaining action oriented, committing to continuous improvement, and being results oriented (Dufour et al., 2008).  The six elements of an effective PLC promote learning by doing.  As with many action-based processes developed for sustaining success, the six elements work most effectively if treated as an interdependent, cyclical process. 

So, as we continue examining how to exhibit advocacy for inclusive education and the Learning for All Mission, reflect upon what you have already done in relation to these needs.  Consider your efforts to establish your school’s (or class’s) non-negotiable goals (NNG) (Marzano & Waters, 2009). How would you rate your efforts to model effective collaboration?  What has been most difficult in seeking to remove obstacles to desired change? 

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30, 2022). How to advocate for inclusive education and the

    learning for all mission. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

 

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

            work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree Press.

 

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the 

           correlates. Solution Tree Press.

 

Marzano, R. & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works. Solution

            Tree Press