When districts want
to integrate research into their reform efforts, I might suggest keeping in
mind the use of frameworks. What is a
framework? In my dictionary, it
describes a framework as an “underlying set of ideas,” a “context”, and
finally, “a system of interconnecting bars.”
These definitions overlook an important element of frameworks – their
ability to be persuasive.
In his book, Changing Minds: The Art and Science of
Changing Out Own and Other People’s Minds, Howard Gardner describes the
seven levers for changing minds, one of which is “re-description,” which I would
argue is a key function of a framework.
Let me explain. A framework takes a set of ideas and describes them according
to a specific set of relationships. For
researchers, this is often expressed as a theoretical framework, which takes a
set of research findings and shapes them into a system of relationships, or described
above as a system for how those ideas are interconnected.
San Francisco
Unified School District recently published its updated strategic plan for
2013-2015, titled Impact Learning. Impact
Lives, which relies heavily on frameworks as a way to integrate research
findings into the ideas driving their plan.
Click here for
the full report. For example, SFUSD posits its coherence framework on page 7,
which is modeled after Harvard University’s Public Education Leadership Project
(PELP) Coherence Framework.[1]
The PELP Framework was designed to help district leaders identify key elements
that support a district-wide improvement strategy and articulate these elements
into a coherent set of relationships. The framework developed by Harvard
researchers stems from what research about business has taught us in regards to
organizational alignment as well as the knowledge from research about reform in
education.
Similarly, on
page 10-11 of the plan, although not named, SFUSD uses a framework from Bryk,
et al.’s research on effective schools in Chicago, often referred to as the
five essential supports – leadership, instructional guidance, professional
capacity systems, student-centered learning climate, and
parent-school-community ties.[2]
This framework is used to describe the strategies in action at SFUSD schools.
These frameworks
articulated by SFUSD become an important lever for influencing the minds of
district leaders as well as other members of the district community about the
importance of research. District leadership may sometimes unknowingly reference
and utilize research findings in their quest to implement the frameworks
associated with this plan. Research, cloaked within these frameworks, becomes
very accessible to district leaders, and seems to translate more easily to in
SFUSD’s strategies associated with their strategic plan.
As researchers
and practitioners look for new ways to bridge their two worlds, I might
recommend researchers take time to “re-describe” their research findings into a
tighter, more succinct set of ideas that may be more accessible and useful to
practitioners looking for guidance in their day-to-day decisions or their
overall district plan.
[1] Public Education Leadership Project
at Harvard University. Downloaded on August 28, 2013 from http://pelp.fas.harvard.edu/book/coherence-framework.
[2] Bryk, A., Sebring, P.B.,
Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S. Easton, J. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from Chicago.
University of Chicago Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment