I keep hearing the word “coherence”
thrown around in school district reform circles. The word “coherence” sounds like it might be a simple thing
to achieve, but the more I read, the more I realized the complexities of the
word.
When you look up the definition of
coherence, it references the phase, “Sticking together.” This made sense
considering both schools and districts are organizations that need to make sure
people are working together in concert towards similar end goals.
Two studies describing coherence in
schools made the most sense to me and seemed to make the strongest arguments
for the importance of coherence. While these studies examined school coherence,
they also have implications for what districts can do to support schools in
building coherence.
First, Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, and
Bryk,[i]
describe instructional program coherence as requiring three conditions:
1) A common instructional framework guides curriculum, teaching,
assessment and learning climate with expectations for student learning, with
specific strategies and materials to guide teaching and assessment. A common instructional
framework means
a. Curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessments of students
are coordinated among teachers within a grade level;
b. Curriculum/assessment proceed logically from one grade to the
next;
c. Key support programs for students, parents, etc. focus
consistently on the school’s instructional framework.
2) Staff working conditions supports implementation of the framework.
a. Administrators and teachers expect one another to implement the
framework;
b. Criteria for recruiting and hiring teachers emphasize commitment
to the framework;
c. Teachers are evaluated and held accountable on their effective use
of the framework;
d. Professional development opportunities for staff are focused on
the framework and is pursued over time.
3) The school allocates resources such as funding, materials, time,
and staff assignments to advance the school’s framework and avoid diffuse
efforts.
a. Curriculum and assessments remain stable over time;
b. Teacher have stable assignments and therefore sustained
opportunities to learn to teach well in their role.
Newmann, et al. suggest that schools
wanting to build coherence should focus all efforts on a few core educational
goals pursued through a common instructional framework. Districts wanting to
build coherence should do things like organize central professional development
around school teams working on common instructional frameworks.
Second, the Strategic Education
Research Partnership supported work with Richard Elmore and Michelle Forman
from Harvard on an internal coherence assessment protocol or ICAP to be used
with schools.[ii]
They define internal coherence as “a school’s capacity to engage in deliberate improvements in
instructional practice and student learning across classrooms, over time.”[iii]
Elmore and Forman’s full assessment process of internal
coherence, the ICAP, entails a teacher survey, classroom observations, and
interview protocols used with teacher and principal focus groups. The ICAP is
meant to give school leaders and possibly district leaders information about a
school’s capacity on each of the three dimensions of Internal Coherence:
1. “Leadership focused on the support for instructional practice.”
2. “Individual and collective efficacy beliefs.”
3. “Whole school and team-level organizational structures and processes.”[iv]
Elmore and Forman emphasize the
developmental nature of school improvement. A school’s internal coherence is
not a “’turnaround’ or an event,” but rather a developmental rating. They use
the domains below on their developmental rubric and offer exemplars of
beginning, emergent, functional, and exemplar levels.
1. Instructional leadership
2. Organizational structures and process
3. Leadership for learning
4. Collective understanding of effective practice
5. Efficacy/accountability[v]
The draft development rubric the team
created seems like a helpful tool for schools that want to reflect on their
level of internal coherence, and for district to reflect on how they can
support schools development of internal coherence.
[i] Newmann,
F.M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., Bryk, T. (Winter 2001). Instructional Program
Coherence: What It Is and Why IT Should Guide School Improvement Policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol.
23, No. 4, pp.297-321.
[ii] Strategic Education
Research Partnership. (2012). “Building Coherence within Schools.” Retrieved on
January 15, 2013 from http://ic.serpmedia.org/
[iii] Strategic
Education Research Partnership, 2012.
[iv] Strategic
Education Research Partnership, 2012.
[v] Elmore, R.
(2011). Developmental Rubric for School Improvement – Draft Copy. Retrieved on
January 15, 2013 from http://ic.serpmedia.org/downloads/IC_%20developmental_rubric.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment