Coherence

Book Review: Coherence

By Michael Fullan & Joanne Quinn

In the opening chapter of Coherence, authors Michael Fullan and Joanne Quinn define coherence as follows: “the shared depth of understanding about the purpose and nature of the work”. (1) When everyone in the school or district can “talk the walk”, that is, when everyone can articulate the key ideas and actions that define an organization, then coherence is achieved. (2)

In Chapter 1, they also identify the 4 elements of their Coherence Framework: focusing direction, cultivating collaborative cultures, deepening learning, and securing accountability.  Their “big message” pertaining to these drivers though is that “they go together and must be addressed simultaneously and continuously”. (11)

The first component of the Coherence Framework, focusing direction, is the topic of Chapter 2.  It has 4 dimensions.  First, there must be moral purpose, “a deep, relentless purpose”. (18)  Secondly, the goals must have impact.  The main threat to impactful goals is “the presence of too many … ad hoc, unconnected, and ever-changing” goals and initiatives. (19)  The authors recommend a 4-step approach to avoid such initiativitis.   School district leaders must be transparent by acknowledging and gaining clarity on the issues at hand.  Next, they need to build a common language and use a collaborative approach.  They also should employ a reduce, reframe, and remove strategy:

·         Reduce the clutter and overload of initiatives by identifying 2 or 3 key goals or an “umbrella focus” (22);

·         Reframe the connections between goals to avoid fragmentation;

·         Remove distractors – by  identifying “time wasters and inefficiencies”, giving   principals and leaders permission to say no, and avoiding “shiny objects and alluring  possibilities” (23).

 Lastly, district leaders should cultivate engagement by communicating often and listening even more often.

The third aspect of focusing direction is clarity of the strategy.  When explicitness of the ideas is lacking, the result will be inertia or superficial activity; however, if there is clarity about the plan, effective action and innovation are possible.

The last element of focusing direction is change leadership.  Fullan and Quinn use a metaphor of 2 fishbowls to describe the challenges of moving districts, schools, and individual teachers in the direction of innovation.  To successfully jump from one bowl to the other, a fish requires both competence and confidence.  Likewise, district leaders need to build the capacity of principals and teachers to take the leap in the direction of innovation, and they should celebrate the successful leaps forward by early adopters in order to encourage less confident and more reluctant staff to also move forward.   The authors recommend that leaders consider the following research-informed practices for successful change initiatives:

·         Participate as a co-learner;

·         Encourage leadership from the middle, and recognize that “shifting practices” can come        from all levels of the organization (30);

·         Balance push and pull strategies;

·         Create “safe places for risk taking” (31); and,

·         Build capacity in every way possible

The Coherence Framework

Quinn & Fullan on Coherence

In Chapter 3, Fullan and Quinn explain 4 elements of cultivating collaborative cultures, the second coherence factor.  The first element is a growth mindset that is reflected both in policy decisions and strategy.  For instance, rather than recruiting talent and looking for solutions from outside the organization, school district leaders should concentrate on “… leadership development strategies that grow internal capacity.” (50)   The second element is learning leadership that models a culture of continuous learning through direct participation in professional learning and creates and supports learning situations that promote “… inquiry habits of mind throughout the school.” (55)

The authors refer to the findings of John Hattie in support of the 3^rd aspect they identify – collaborative capacity building.  According to Hattie, “collective efficacy” has the highest effect size (1.57) on student learning of any single factor.   The authors elaborate by noting that “The key to a capacity building approach lies in developing a common knowledge and skill base across all leaders and educators in the system.” (57)  The 3 key features of collaborative capacity building are learning partnerships within schools and across the system, sustained focus over multiple sessions, and iterative learning cycles.  

The final element is quality collaborative work.  The following important caution is given by the authors: “Groups are powerful, which means they can be powerfully wrong.” (13)  Their meaning is that frustration, and at the best, only surface learning will result from PLCs and other team work unless there is effective learning design. (ie. clear and measurable goals, well established group norms, and effective protocols, such as critical friends, for inquiry) 

For the 3^rd driver for achieving coherence, deepening learning, Fullan and Quinn identify 3 elements.  Clarity of deep learning goals is the first element.  School district leaders should ask the following question to determine what the goals should be: “What are the two or three things that will most improve student learning?” (80-81)  The authors add that, in determining goals, district leaders should be wary of confusing strategies with purposes.  When it comes to digital technologies, they need to recognize that “pedagogy is the driver and digital is the accelerator to go faster and deeper into learning.” (81)   The authors then identify the 6 Cs as the key to deep learning goals:

·         Communication – multimodal and designed for different audiences;

·         Critical Thinking – including making connections, problem solving, and evaluating        
      information and arguments;

·         Collaboration – interpersonal and team dynamics skills;

·         Creativity – entrepreneurialism and pursuing novel ideas and solutions;

·         Character – grit, resiliency, tenacity, responsibility, and empathy; and,

·         Citizenship – interest in human and environmental sustainability.

The 2^nd element for deepening learning is precision in pedagogy, which is achieved across a school district by constructing a common language and knowledge base, identifying research-informed learning strategies, targeting capacity building, and establishing clear links between learning and assessment.

As a part of the focus on pedagogy, Fullan and Quinn introduce 3 strands of the New Pedagogies for Deep Learning (NPDL) model.  The first of these is pedagogical partnerships.  Although they also advocate for partnerships with families, the authors stress, in particular, a student learning model that represents a more intimate partnership between teachers and students such that students are agents who co-design learning and assessment tasks.  In this model, student aspirations and interests help shape instruction, and positive student expectations are constantly reinforced.   The second strand is a highly engaging learning environment that fosters risk taking, innovation, differentiation, and authentic inquiry learning.  The last aspect is effective leveraging of digital technologies such that they augment and transform learning rather than just serve as expensive substitutions (“$1,000 pencils”) for traditional technologies. (98)

The 3^rd and final element for deepening learning is shifting teacher practices through capacity building.  The process for this involves assessing current teacher capacity and planning professional learning accordingly.

The final driver to bring about coherence is securing accountability.  However, Fullan and Quinn do not believe that external accountability is the answer.  For one thing, they note that external accountability systems simply don’t get results.  Furthermore, although such systems “tell us that the system is not performing …[they] do not give a clue about how to fix the situation.” (112)  Worst of all, because of the pressure they cause, external accountability systems have sometimes resulted in cheating. 

Instead, school districts need to focus on building internal accountability and then reinforcing it with external accountability.   In support of the emphasis they place on internal accountability, they note that research on school effectiveness and improvement “…suggests that internal accountability must precede external accountability.” (111)  For the authors, internal accountability in a school system means that individuals and groups of educators willingly agree to take personal, professional, and collective responsibility for success for all students.

The authors stress that school and district leaders need to establish the conditions for cultures of internal accountability to thrive.   The good news on this point is that if they “work diligently” on the first 3 elements of the Coherence Framework, then the conditions for internal accountability will inevitably follow. (124)  At the same time that district leaders build cultures in which individuals and groups are accountable to themselves,  they should also “… engage the external policy and accountability system.” (124)  By doing so, they will achieve 2 important purposes: They will both protect the system from distractions and interference and project their goals and beliefs on the larger educational community, with the hope of influencing it for the better.