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. (2nd Ed)
International Alliance for
Invitational Education. Retrieved from:
