A school is a system of interrelated elements, which cannot be fully understood outside of the larger system (supra-system) in which it exists (Center for Ecoliteracy, n.d.). When leaders examine systems’ dynamics at any level, they cannot do so independently of overarching and subsystems. The current climate of school accountability coupled with the urgency of increased achievement outcomes often leads leaders to deploy drivers (the wrong drivers) associated with quick fixes as the chief mediums of school-wide reform efforts usually targeted at subsystems. Primarily because, “we have attempted to treat education as a unitary system “one having a single, clear goal, (Banathy, 1991, p. 35),

But in reality,
it is highly pluralistic,
with many conflicting goals, (Betts, 1992)!

Analysis of systems design illuminates how practices focused on structural drivers, such as accountability, talent of individuals, technology, and fragmented strategies (Dufour & Fullan, 2013) for immediate results reinforce the marginalization of disenfranchised subgroups within our schools. The compromises that we have reached by applying old paradigms in a new context are proving to be unsatisfactory,” (Betts, 1992). Without considering the long-term implications on student achievement, data-driven school leaders further erode reform efforts when focused on the implementation of structural drivers as the dominant vehicles for systems reform.

System-wide reform is dependent on culture. That is not to say individuals are not essential to the process however, bad culture will consume good people. Therefore, it is pivotal systems reform begins with leadership efforts focused on shifting culture and developing individuals simultaneously (Fullan & Quin, 2016). Leadership is the enabler of improvement, orchestrating the various elements; such as focused direction, professional capability, quality instruction, and community engagement that must work together improve and sustain growth in student outcomes (Robinson, 2018). Sustainable systems reform efforts are dependent on leadership’s ability to activate the components of the coherence framework.

This paper seeks to address how coherence, “the integration of diverse elements (Merriam-Webster, n.d.)” (Fullan & Quinn, 2016), assist leaders in school-wide reform efforts, while fortifying subsystems, i.e. professional learning communities (PLC), with supports and recommendations to improve educational outcomes for all students. Particularly those who are struggling most.

Equity as an Analytical Lens

Schools must work to ensure equity and fairness in all integrated systems. Equity demands school leaders operate within a coherence framework to mitigate the impact of the wrong drivers and ameliorate the right drivers. Thereby maximizing the outcomes for all participants. Whole-system reform is an amalgamation of art and science disciplines. To begin, one must recognize and identify the systems and processes within those systems serving to place limits on student achievement. Countering these systems means adopting equity as an analytical lens in which we examine the organizational systems within our walls.

If education is the great equalizer, the question becomes; what has the school to do with the oppressed and their struggle for liberation and equality? In the 2009 publication of The Journal of Negro Education issue 78 volume 2, Dr. Sonya Horsford, Program Director for the Urban Education Leaders Program at Columbia University’s Teachers College, states, “race should be at the center of any serious examination of educational opportunities and outcomes within racially segregated, desegregated or re-segregated contexts” (Horsford, 2009). Parenthetically, inequality and social justice are inclusive of more than race and ethnicity.

“However, while educators seek to improve learning outcomes for all students, traditionally much of the work is inclusive of African-American and Hispanic students who have been marginalized because of the larger system of institutionalized racism informing the systems we have in place in our schools” (Smith, 2019).

Consequently, there are disproportionate numbers of minority individuals in special education programs, schools in lower socioeconomic areas traditionally are staffed with teachers least prepared to produce learning gains; resulting in students being unfairly tracked into low level academic courses. Moreover, statistics highlight the exuberant numbers of minority and ESE students in behavior programs- yet schools opt for double blocking these students in additional classes rather than electives to build social emotional intelligence despite the data on double blocked classes.

Coherence Framework and Leadership

Although all systems within a building are integrated and thus affect and influence one another, none is as essential to the process as leadership. Leadership is responsible for building capacity in participants while remaining connected to and integrating school improvement initiatives at every level, and deploying progress-monitoring measures to respond to changes where necessary. Leadership is the single most important element affecting schools. It is leadership’s responsibility to select the right drivers and operationalize the coherence framework to bring about system-wide reform. Accordingly, the task of operationalizing coherence requires school leaders to focus the direction of systemic pivots or system-wide iterations, cultivate a collaborative culture, deepen learning for all participants, and maximize internal accountability in addition to reinforcing internal accountability with external accountability (Fullan & Quinn, 2016).