Definition of Whole System Coaching/ What Whole Systems Coaches Do

 

I.               A Definition of “Whole System” Coaching

In order to define “whole system coaching,” we must first define “system.”  A system can be defined as the dynamic interplay of structures, processes, and beliefs/values/assumptions that reinforce each other through feedback to make certain things happen (and keep others from happening) as a routine part of the work of a school and/or district.  ”System,” as referred to here, includes those aspects “above the green line” (structure, pattern, process) and those “below the green line” (information, relationship, identity), as defined in the “Six Circle Model.”* A “Whole System” coach works in the following ways with such systems (no matter where that coach is situated in the system):

1.    Point of View:  The coach focuses on building the capacity of the client to operate and act within and upon a larger system

, and sees the client’s development in terms of how it can be leveraged strategically to achieve larger goals in changing the system.  The coach does not just focus on an individual client’s (teacher, principal, etc.) development of knowledge, skills, etc.

2.    Sees the Whole System and Sees the Parts and Sees their Interaction: Peter Senge put it this way:  ”Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static ‘snapshots.’ …. And systems thinking is a sensibility — for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character.”

3.    

Operating within an Understanding of Systems Architecture:  There are two types of “systems architecture” that a whole systems coach needs to understand:

a) the system as we traditionally think of it, that is, the explicit structure and dynamics of the district and school.  That includes both formal and informal communications, authority, decision-making, etc., and,

b) the non-traditional view, which comes from the field of system dynamics. That “system” is about structures, processes, and beliefs that interconnect to make things happen the way they do, and keep things happening the way they do.  Such a system acts that way no matter what we do with changing the explicit system unless we fundamentally change the underlying architecture.  At the surface are events, and we tend to be overwhelmed by and react to them.  Just below the surface are patterns that can be used to predict events, giving us some measure of ease, but not really the capacity to solve the real problems.  But deeper still is system architecture that explains why patterns exist that lead to events.  This is the deep structure.  Most of it is “below the green line.”

4.    Strategic Focus:  Many different moving parts need to be juggled in connection with each other, in a coordinated way, to achieve results.  Clarity about focus and goals should drive choices of strategy.  Strategy aims at pervasive, persistent, coherent, resourceful, focused action, across the various parts of the system (traditional and non-traditional view).  It is measured, using a variety of kinds of data, against purposes (and values), goals, and results.

5.    Intentionality of Action:  The whole system coach sees the whole picture, and is purposeful about situating decisions

 and actions within that whole in each and every interaction every day.  Clarity about theory of action (“theory in use” as well as “espoused theory”) is essential.

6.    Strategic, and Systemic, Choice of Interventions:  A coach chooses interventions based on their potential to achieve lasting impact and results at the system level, not just solve immediate problems.  In fact, often, solving immediate problems will only exacerbate the situation, as tempting as it is, as good as it makes people feel, and as much pressure as will be exerted on a coach to solve problems for people.  Lasting impact will be attained when the coach has helped people develop the capacity for systems thinking and a deeper analysis of problems based on seeing the whole system that they are part of, and seeing how they are contributing to preserve it, even if inadvertently.

II.              What Whole System Coaches Do

Based on our definition of whole system coaching, the whole system coach will do the following: THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH BUILDS CAPACITY:

• The coach’s job is to build the capacity of the school and district to sustain ongoing improvement, not to build dependency on the coach.
• The coach works as a member of a team, not alone or in isolation, to extend the work strategically to effect scalability and sustainability.  The team may include other coaches across sites (districts, schools, classrooms, communities) as well as teachers, leaders, district staff, schools, and community members in supporting innovation, capacity building, scalability, and sustainability.

 THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH UNDERSTANDS CONTEXT:

• The coach develops a broad understanding of the context and dynamics of the schools and district, in a strategic, efficient, and ongoing way.

 THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH TAKES A DEVELOPMENTAL APPROACH:

• The coach takes a developmental approach to building capacity, using explicit strategies to assess and understand where the schools and district are currently in their improvement efforts, and identifying entry points consistent with that current state.  This is ongoing work.

 THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH BUILDS AND MAINTAINS RELATIONSHIPS AND PROVIDES EMOTIONAL SUPPORT:

• The coach builds and maintains trusting relationships with key people in the setting.  That includes providing emotional support for the difficult work of improvement.

 THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH STRATEGICALLY LINKS ACTIONS TO RESULTS WITHIN A CLEAR THEORY OF ACTION:

• The coach strategically links a focus on concrete actions situated within a clear theory of action with intended outcomes and results for significant improvement in student achievement.  The coach focuses this work with adults in the school and district expressly on achieving results for those students who traditionally have not succeeded in school.  Merely focusing on improving adult relations (collaboration structures and culture) is not sufficient.

 THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH SITUATES WORK WITHIN AN OVERALL IMPROVEMENT PLAN:

• The coach links work with individuals and groups (teachers, leaders, community members, etc.) coherently and strategically with the existing or developing overall district improvement plan and any reform agenda that is part of the district agenda.

 THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH BROKERS ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

• Often a coach must be a broker or linker to other resources beyond what s/he has the capacity to provide; knowledge of these resources or of how to find them is essential.

 THE WHOLE SYSTEM COACH TAKES A CLEAR VALUES-BASED STANCE AND ACTS CONSISTENTLY WITH INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY:

• The coach is clear about her/his stance, “who she ‘be’” as a person in the work.  The coach acts with integrity and is authentic and genuine about what s/he believes to be the case about: 1) the nature of coaching work, 2) the nature and possibility of the people in the system to engage in successful district and school improvement, and, 3) the nature of the capacity of the students to be successful learners.  The coach is also clear about his/her values and beliefs about equity and the purposes of public schooleducation with regard to equity.  These values and beliefs are explicit in the coach’s work.  The coach stands for, and holds, a strong vision for positive transformation at all times.

 

---

*Tim Dalmau, Dick Knowles, Myron Kellner Rogers, and Meg Wheatley, 1983-1995.

 

The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course Before It’s Too Late?

In 1993, Seymour Sarason wrote the book, The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course Before It’s Too Late? The question resonates (well, actually, it’s like standing in the belfry as the matins bells are rung, that is, it’s deafening) these days as I read more and more stories of districts that got federal money to restructure their comprehensive high schools into smaller learning communities, botched the effort, and often before the end of the grant, had their communities storming the walls of the district office and school board meetings to demand return to the status quo. Why should that be the case? What are we all doing so terribly wrong? I don’t think it’s all about the football team.

The research on effective small schools is overwhelmingly positive. Even the less autonomous SLC’s in many places have had success in personalizing teaching and learning, reducing absenteeism and disruptive behavior, and increasing graduation rates and college attending rates, even if not showing some gains on state and NCLB mandated tests. So, I repeat, why the predictable failure rate?

I’ll stick my neck out here. It’s simple. Poor leadership that lacks a real understanding of the why’s and wherefore’s of the conversion process (signing on to the latest fad), poor efforts at community (and union) engagement early in the process and continuing throughout implementation, bad communication planning and execution, poor design process, lack of attention to existing research on successful efforts and failure modes, no effort to visit existing successful districts that have model small school and/or SLC’s to show off, a complete and utter lack of understanding of the complexities of the transition from design to implementation, and horrible to non-existent implementation planning and support. And I have to say, the feds certainly could be more directive here. I know of some districts that got money for “wall to wall” SLC conversions whose design was nothing more than advisories, and advisories that meet 20 minutes once or twice a week. The comprehensive high school of the 1960’s with homeroom.

So, what could we be doing better, other than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting from scratch? How might a school district avoid these obvious pitfalls? I think all of this is avoidable. I think the simplest answer is to find (and commit to working with over the long haul) a consultant/coach, or better yet a team of them, who know more than how to coach a leader to develop his or her personal leadership style and be a better instructional leader, or how to coach a teacher to teach better. Coaching and consulting skills and experience with systems change, not just leadership coaching and instructional coaching, is essential for SLC or small school conversion efforts to succeed. Districts need outside assistance (better yet, they need to develop inside assistance systems) to plan and manage a conversion effort so it’s research-based, coherent, engaging of the community from the start, based on an understanding of successful practice, understood as more than a change in curriculum, that is, as an organizational change effort, thorough as to its design planning, even more thorough as to its implementation planning, focused at the district level, with policy changes that are necessary to support the new configurations at the schools, develops district capacity to engage in continuous improvement, and provides skill development coaching for all the new roles and responsibilities. Not to mention a radically different understanding of teaching and learning that is more than advisories once or twice a week, that permeates the intimate relations between teachers and students, and among teachers, and among students.

What does such coaching look like? I’ve begun that discussion here before. Now I’d like to add some thinking from my own research reviews and experience. The next post will lay out what I see the research on effective systemic coaching as involving. I hope you will read what is here and add your own perspective and insights. Let’s build the dialogue about coaching’s role in successful school and district change.

John