Running head: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
1
Organizational Coherence in the context of School Improvement: The Development of a
Coherence Framework
Proposal submitted for AERA annual meeting 2015
Megan Welton and Viviane M. J. Robinson
The University of Auckland
Author Note
Correspondence should be addressed to Megan Welton, The University of Auckland,
Faculty of Education, Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland 1150, NZ
T. +64 9 623 8899 x 82991 E-mail: [email protected]
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Abstract
Coherence is an organizational property describing the extent that a school coordinates its
resources, systems, and processes with a collective focus on improving student outcomes.
This paper reports the development of a coherence framework that describes the practices and
outcomes required to coherently implement a designed improvement strategy. We discuss
the concept of coherence, and then draw on the organizational and educational literature to
propose a framework in which leadership practices guide the crafting of organizational
practices which cohere with the adopted reform strategies. The outcome of these combined
practices is a shared enacted theory of improvement. The framework and its associated
measurement rubric provide specific guidance for researching and promoting coherent school
improvement through designed initiatives.
2
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Purpose
This paper describes the development of a coherence framework specifying the
leadership and organizational practices necessary for the coherent implementation of a
designed improvement strategy in a high school context. The term coherent is used here to
describe schools that integrate improvement strategies into their routines, systems,
interactions and tools, both inside and outside the classroom. These connections embed
reform strategies into the social, human and technical memory of the school creating greater
likelihood of sustained student outcomes (Bishop, Berryman, Wearmouth, & Peter, 2012;
Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, & Bryk, 2001; Timar & Chyu, 2010). A designed
improvement strategy is one developed by a provider external to the school that specifies a
set of “educational practices that can be replicated in many school settings” (Rowan,
Correnti, Miller, & Camburn, 2009, p. 11). Often these strategies are intended to help
educators reduce inequities in the engagement and achievement of students from different
social groups (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003).
Developing sufficient coherence to sustain a reform effort is a considerable challenge:
only a quarter to a third of schools develop sufficient levels of coherence to support sustained
improvement (Bishop et al., 2012; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010;
Newmann et al., 2001). Despite these challenges, research provides guidance about how
schools can embed their reform strategies. This paper aims to identify the component
practices required for coherence around an initiative and to define outcomes that signal the
extent to which coherence has been accomplished. The framework is specified at a level of
detail that enables educators and researchers to use it to evaluate and improve the
coordination and coherence of a reform effort.
3
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Theoretical framework
Authors agree that organizational coordination is not a rigid alignment of structures,
processes and rules, but a dynamic, forming and reforming of social practices over time
(Honig & Hatch, 2004; Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman, 2012). In this account, coordinating
routines develop as teachers and leaders interact to accomplish a task or goal. Successive
efforts to coordinate around a task create an abstract ostensive version of the routine that is
shared amongst organizational members. This routine is used as a template to simplify future
efforts to achieve the same goal or task (Feldman & Pentland, 2003).
When practices are coherent, the result is improved organizational outcomes, such as
shared understandings about the sequence of tasks, collective and individual accountabilities,
and agreement around quality outcomes (Jarzabkowski et al., 2012). For instance, Newmann
et al. (2001) studied instructional program coherence and found social practices which
involved teachers in the selection and ongoing refinement of common curriculum,
assessments, materials and resources enhanced organizational outcomes including teacher
ownership of instructional improvement and maintenance of group instructional resources.
However, when teachers worked autonomously, instructional program coherence suffered.
Coordination of new improvement strategies occurs simultaneously by enacting
existing mechanisms, and generating new ones that fit better with the strategy (Jarzabkowski
et al., 2012; Spillane, Parise, & Sherer, 2011) and make clearer links to student outcomes.
Accordingly, school leaders must question how well existing routines coordinate the reform
strategy. This is one of the multiple roles leaders perform in supporting and expecting
coherence such as using school-wide goals and strategies to simplify decision-making,
linking disparate initiatives and making choices to build bridges or buffer relationships with
external stakeholders (Honig & Hatch, 2004). In summary, leaders are essential catalysts for
coherent organizational practices. Theirs is a balancing act: setting expectations and holding
4
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
their team to account while supporting them by establishing the conditions that enable
effective performance (Elmore, 2004; Mintrop, 2012).
Figure 1 portrays the ’theory of action’ for how coherence, when wrapped around a
designed improvement strategy, increases the likelihood of improved student outcomes in
high schools. On the left-hand-side, leaders catalyze improvement by setting the tone,
through their behavior and actions, about the requirement for organizational coherence. The
middle of the diagram portrays the designed school improvement initiative interacting with
organizational practices that enhance coherence and sustain the reform strategy. This model
assumes that schools using coherent organizational practices to implement and sustain an
improvement strategy are more likely to obtain improved organizational outcomes, such as
more teachers demonstrating exemplary practices in the designed strategy, and that such
organizational outcomes are a prerequisite for improved student outcomes.
Coherent
Organisational
Practices
Coherent
Leadership
Practices
Improved
Organisational
Outcomes
Drive
Improved
Student
Achievement
Outcomes
Designed
Improvement
Strategy
Figure 1. A theory of action for how coherent leadership and organizational practices wrap
around a designed improvement strategy to improve organizational and student outcomes
Methods
Initially the literature search focused on peer-reviewed journals and aimed to identify
whole-school models of the leadership and organizational practices required to coherently
5
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
implement a designed improvement strategy. Few studies met these criteria and so the search
was widened to include broader sources and frameworks for coherence between schools and
districts or states.
The literature on frameworks was supplemented with a search in peer-reviewed
journals for more specific evidence about the operation of specific coherence processes and
organizational outcomes. This search was based on key words derived from the framework
and the literature on coherence and coordination. Key words included: goal setting,
organizational alignment, strategic resourcing, capability development, student engagement,
caregiver engagement, professional learning communities, instructional coherence and
organizational learning. Key words were also searched in combination when necessary to
achieve more precise search results. The literature was used to elaborate the high-level
framework and define rich indicators for coherence.
Data sources
Table 1 presents the five coherence frameworks that were identified in the literature
search. For each framework, the columns describe the purpose of the framework, the
evidence used to develop it and its key dimensions. In the purpose column a distinction is
made between coherence frameworks and school improvement frameworks. Coherence
frameworks are based on organizational theory about the best ways of coordinating activity
around improvement. School improvement frameworks describe a broader set of
organizational features, including some coordinating practices, differentiating high and low
performing schools. For example, we have categorized Bryk et al.’s (2010) essential
supports framework as a school improvement framework because it includes both
coordinating practices (e.g. extent of collaboration amongst teachers) and other features of
high performing schools (e.g. extent that teachers apply particular instructional pedagogies in
a classroom).
6
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
The Table 1 purpose column presents the different contexts for each model
(elementary, middle, high school and district coherence) and distinguishes between wholeschool and instructional program models. Instructional program models were included
because they provided rich exemplars of high school senior leader and teacher leader
practices leading to improved teaching and learning.
The basis for development column shows that all frameworks drew on the research
literature in their area and some, but not all, have not been tested empirically. The PELP
Framework and Internal Coherence frameworks were developed primarily to support
practitioner development. The framework dimensions column shows the variety of concepts
used to define and/or measure coherence in the literature. Closer reading of the dimensions
and supporting literature revealed commonalities that were used to develop this paper’s
coherence framework.
7
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Table 1
Summary of the coherence frameworks in the education literature
Framework and
Authors
Purpose
Basis for development
Framework dimensions
Essential
Supports for
Improvement
(Bryk et al.,
2010)
Wholeschool
improvement
framework
for
elementary
schools
The key research output from Chicago’s
decentralized school reform longitudinal
study on a broad range of indicators at
401 elementary schools over seven years.
The essential supports are the factors
differentiating high and low performing
schools.
(1) Instructional guidance
(2) Parent, school and
community ties
(3) Professional capacity
(4) School learning climate
(5) Leadership as a driver for
change
Goals,
Pedagogy,
Institutions,
Leadership,
Spreading,
Evidence,
Ownership
(GPILSEO)
model
(A. R. Bishop
et al., 2012; R.
Bishop,
O'Sullivan, &
Berryman,
2010)
Wholeschool
coherence
framework
for high
schools
Developed in New Zealand during the Te
Kotahitanga project as a guide for 33
leaders implementing a culturally
responsive pedagogy. The model
describes a list of essential classroom,
school and system level elements
required to sustain and spread the reform.
Based on evidence from the project and a
review of the school improvement and
change leadership literature.
(1) Goals focusing on improving
student participation and
achievement
(2) Developing a new pedagogy
in depth
(3) Developing new institutions
and structures
(4) Developing leadership that
is responsive and proactive
(5) Spreading the reform to
include others
(6) Evidence of the progress of
the reform
(7) Taking ownership
Public
Education
Leadership
Project (PELP)
Framework
(Childress,
Johnson,
Grossman, &
Elmore, 2007)
District-level
coherence
framework
Tool developed to support district leader
professional development by the PELP.
Based on the business and education
literatures and strongly influenced by the
business perspective on organizational
alignment. The model was refined based
on feedback from District leaders.
(1) Instructional core
(2) Theory of change
(3) Strategy
(4) Culture
(5) Structure
(6) Systems
(7) Resources
(8) Stakeholders
(9) Environment
Internal
Coherence
Framework
(SERP
Institute, 2012)
Coherence
around
instructional
improvement
across
classrooms
for middle
and
elementary
schools
A set of practices, beliefs and processes
that support improvements in
instructional practice. The assessment
protocol and tools were developed on the
basis of the literature on organizational
learning, accountability, collective
efficacy, effective teams and shared
practice literature. The protocol has been
field-tested and developed in 21 low
performing schools in Boston.
(1) Instructional Leadership
(2) Organizational Structure
and Process
(3) Leadership for Learning
(4) Collective understanding of
effective practice
(5) Efficacy and accountability
8
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Framework and
Authors
Purpose
Basis for development
Framework dimensions
Instructional
Program
Coherence
Rubric
(Newmann et
al., 2001)
Coherence
around
instructional
program for
elementary
schools
Developed based on longitudinal research
over three years in 222 schools, including
11 in-depth field studies, plus a literature
review focusing on “learning, motivation,
organizational productivity and school
effectiveness” (p. 299). Measures
include survey items and a 4-point scale
rubric for detailed analysis of
instructional program coherence.
(1) A common instructional
framework guiding
curriculum, teaching,
assessment and learning
(alignment across grades and
into key student support
programs)
(2) Staff working conditions
support implementation of
the framework (mutual
accountability, selection
practices, performance
management, professional
development)
(3) School allocates resources
such as funding, materials,
time and staff assignments to
advance the school’s
common instructional
framework
Findings
Figure 2 presents our framework defining the organizational and leadership practices,
and associated organizational outcomes, likely to be observed in a school that is working
coherently to implement a designed improvement strategy. The framework has three
concentric circles. The outer circle describes the leadership and organizational practices
driving coherence. The middle circle describes the organizational outcomes resulting from
coherent leadership and organizational practices. The inner circle, also describes an
organizational outcome, a shared and clear theory of improvement. The circles are divided
into four quadrants, each representing specific sets of organizational practices and outcomes:
(a) align strategies to achieve goals; (b) establish conditions for learning and improvement;
(c) build caregiver and student engagement; and (d) promote teacher and leader learning and
improvement. The outcome in the center of the diagram rests across all four quadrants as it is
assumed that a clearer theory of improvement, shared by a greater proportion of teachers and
leaders, develops as the practices in the other quadrants are executed. The arrow pointing at
9
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
quadrant A, clear and specific goals for student achievement highlights the requirement for
improvement strategies to be linked to broader school goals (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe,
2008).
A. Align strategies
to achieve goals
Clear, specific and
measurable goals
for student
achievement
Evaluate
improvement
strategies to ensure
alignment
Conduct school-level
monitoring of
improvement
strategies
Establish routines to allocate
resources and build
organisational processes, tools
and systems to enable
improvement
Improvement strategies
aligned to deliver on
goals for student
achievement
Sufficient aligned
resources
Organisational
processes, tools &
systems enable
improvement
PRACTICES
OUTCOMES
B. Establish
conditions for
learning and
improvement
Joint working with
improvement strategy
provider to remove
barriers
Clear and Shared
Theory of
Improvement
Students actively engage
in their learning
Update instructional
strategies and materials in
line with improvements
Integrate formal and
informal professional
development
Teachers and leaders
improve delivery of
exemplary practice
Collective efficacy around
strategy implementation
Build professional
communities for learning
and improvement
D. Promote teacher
and leader learning
& improvement
Run mechanisms for
peer collaboration
Caregivers understand
and support their child’s
learning
Embed
improvement
strategy in student
and caregiver
routines, tools and
interactions
C. Build caregiver
and student engagement
Figure 2. Coherence practices and outcomes around a designed improvement strategy
To increase the specificity and utility of this framework we developed a rubric
defining approximately four indicators for each organizational practice and outcome on a
four-point scale (1 = no evidence of coherent practice; 4 = coherent practice almost all of the
time). The scoring metric was based on a metric used to measure instructional program
coherence (Newmann et al., 2001). Below is a description of the literature that shaped the
indicators for the quadrants in Figure 2:
10
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Align strategies to achieve goals
Improvement initiatives sitting in isolation clutter up school reform agendas. The
indicators gauge how leaders link initiatives to broader school goals and monitor progress
(Timar & Chyu, 2010). They also assess the ways leaders evaluate how initiatives fit
together to deliver on student goals, and then make strategic decisions to accept, refuse or
adapt initiatives (Hatch, 2001; Timperley & Robinson, 2000).
Establish the conditions for learning and improvement
This coherence practice involves obstacle removal, so that resource constraints and
existing processes, systems and tools are aligned with the improvement design (Stringfield,
Reynolds, & Schaffer, 2008). Indicators measure the extent that commonly reported
obstacles, such as inadequacy of student achievement data and teacher time for individual
and group learning, are eliminated and become enablers rather than obstacles (Robinson,
McNaughton, & Timperley, 2011; Timperley & Robinson, 2000).
Build caregiver and student support
Messages and expectations need to be aligned across all interactions with caregivers
and students to create engagement and build deeper and trusting relationships as a resource
for further school improvement (Bishop et al., 2010; Bryk et al., 2010). This indicator
recognizes the importance of embedding initiatives in all student and caregiver routines, tools
and interactions.
Promote teacher and leader learning and improvement
To achieve outcomes such as teacher efficacy and understanding of exemplary
practice, indicators include evidence of teachers performing interdependent work around a
few collective priorities associated with the designed improvement. Enabling this are
common curriculum, assessment and instructional strategies, and a cohesive package of team
11
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
and individual professional learning experiences (Newmann et al., 2001; SERP Institute,
2012; Timperley, 2005).
To date, the trialing of the framework and associated rubric has included a focus
group of experienced high school leaders who contributed to indicator selection and revision.
Rubric trials will be conducted in 2014 prior to an empirical study of the relationship between
coherence and student achievement in a sample of high schools participating in a designed
improvement strategy.
Scholarly significance
The problem of creating coherence around reform is a significant theoretical and
practical challenge. This paper makes a significant scholarly contribution by bringing
together a disparate research base on coherence and coordination which stretches across the
organizational, management and educational literatures, and distills it in a way that makes its
implications clear for the achievement of coherent reform. Our focus on high schools is
important because most of the empirical work on coherence in educational organizations has
been conducted in elementary schools (Bryk et al., 2010; Spillane et al., 2011).
The detail of our framework and indicators has benefits for educational leaders and
researchers. Detailed indicators at each point on the four-point scale, clearly communicate
the leadership and organizational practices required at varying levels of coherence. The
descriptors provide educational leaders with tangible next steps on how to develop their
coherence around an intervention. In addition, the framework distinguishes between
organizational practices and organizational outcomes. Organizational outcomes can be used
as leading indicators of progress that are likely to precede student outcome gains. This
supports leaders and researchers in determining the impact of leadership practices within
shorter timeframes. In summary, the framework provides a research and development tool
12
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
that sharpens and refines our descriptions of the practices required to build coherence around
a designed improvement strategy.
Word count: 1975 (excluding abstract, tables, figures, and references)
13
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
References
Bishop, A. R., Berryman, M. A., Wearmouth, J. B., & Peter, M. (2012). Developing an
effective education reform model for indigenous and other minoritized students. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 49-70.
doi:10.1080/09243453.2011.647921
Bishop, R., O'Sullivan, D., & Berryman, M. (2010). Scaling up educational reform:
Addressing the politics of disparity. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press.
Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school
reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125230. doi:10.3102/00346543073002125
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010).
Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. London, UK: University of
Chicago Press.
Childress, S., Johnson, S. M., Grossman, A., & Elmore, R. F. (2007). Managing school
districts for high performance: Cases in public education leadership. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a
source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.
Hatch, T. (2001). Incoherence in the system: Three perspectives on the implementation of
multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of Education, 109(4), 407-437.
doi:10.1086/444334
14
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage
multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.
doi:10.3102/0013189X033008016
Jarzabkowski, P. A., Lê, J. K., & Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating:
Creating coordinating mechanims in practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 907-927.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0693
Mintrop, H. (2012). Bridging accountability obligations, professional values and (perceived)
student needs with integrity. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 695-726.
doi:10.1108/09578231211249871
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program
coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321. doi:10.3102/01623737023004297
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321509
Robinson, V. M. J., McNaughton, S., & Timperley, H. (2011). Building capacity in a selfmanaging schooling system: The New Zealand experience. Journal of Educational
Administration, 49(6), 720-738. doi:10.1108/09578231111174848
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., Miller, R., & Camburn, E. M. (2009). School improvement by
design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. ( No. 828).
Philadelphia: PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of
Pennsylvania.
SERP Institute. (2012). Building coherence within schools. Retrieved, June 10, 2014, 2014,
Retrieved from http://ic.serpmedia.org
15
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COHERENCE FRAMEWORK
Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling
mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American
Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586-619. doi:10.3102/0002831210385102
Stringfield, S., Reynolds, D., & Schaffer, E. C. (2008). Improving secondary students'
academic achievement through a focus on reform reliability: 4- and 9-year findings from
the High Reliability Schools project. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
19(4), 409-428. doi:10.1080/09243450802535190
Timar, T. B., & Chyu, K. K. (2010). State strategies to improve low performing schools:
California's high priority schools grant program. Teachers College Record, 112(7),
1897-1936.
Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395-420. doi:10.1080/00220270500038545
Timperley, H. S., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2000). Workload and the professional culture of
teachers. Educational Management and Administration, 28(1), 47.
doi:10.1177/0263211X000281005
16