The District Coherence Sequence
A research-grounded starting point for 5–7 years of systemic coherence work.
Districts routinely confuse alignment with coherence. Alignment is a compliance state in which policies and curricula match on paper. Coherence, as defined by Fullan and Quinn (2016), is shared depth of understanding about the purpose and nature of the work. Districts can be fully aligned and deeply incoherent, and most are. Before sequencing any multi-year improvement plan, district leaders must identify the gap between espoused and enacted theories of action. This document names what must be identified first, then sets out ten sequential steps grounded in peer-reviewed and foundational research for the 5–7 years of work that follow.
I. The First Identification
Before strategic planning, budget decisions, or initiative adoption, district leaders must identify one thing.
The gap between what the district says teaching and learning should look like (espoused theory of action) and what is actually enacted in classrooms, central office routines, and decision-making (enacted theory of action).
This distinction, drawn from Argyris and Schön (1974), operationalized for schools by Elmore (2004), and validated across Chicago Public Schools by Bryk et al. (2010), is the foundation of every coherence decision that follows. Fullan and Quinn (2016) name the refusal to diagnose this gap as the root cause of "initiative-itis" — districts launching new work on top of systems that cannot absorb it.
What the diagnostic must surface
Official theory of action — what the district publicly states it values.
Inferred theory of action — what principals and teachers believe the district actually values, inferred from budget, time, evaluation, and leadership attention.
Enacted theory of action — what is observable in classrooms and central office operations.
Fractures — where these three diverge, and the consequences for students.
This diagnostic precedes strategy. Skipping it produces aligned binders, not coherent practice.
II. The Ten-Step Sequence
The sequence below assumes the baseline diagnostic is complete. Each step is grounded in peer-reviewed research or foundational scholarship. Chronology matters — compressing or reordering produces the failure patterns documented across decades of implementation research (Bryk et al., 2010; Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2016).
| Year | Phase | Steps |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | Diagnose and Focus | Steps 1–3 |
| Years 2–3 | Build Instructional Infrastructure | Steps 4–6 |
| Years 3–4 | Connect Systems | Steps 7–8 |
| Years 4–5 | Leadership Capacity | Step 9 |
| Years 5–7 | Sustainability and Institutionalization | Step 10 |
01 Baseline coherence diagnostic.
Map current state across instructional practice, central office routines, data systems, and leadership signal. Use artifact-based review and instructional rounds to surface enacted practice, not self-report.
02 Articulate a narrow, shared theory of action.
Reduce to two or three non-negotiable instructional priorities. Initiative overload is the most reliable predictor of reform failure in the implementation literature.
03 Audit for a guaranteed and viable curriculum.
Verify that what is taught is standards-aligned, grade-level, and accessible to every student. TNTP's Opportunity Myth documented that even students in schools considered successful rarely receive grade-level assignments.
04 Transform central office from compliance to instructional support.
Honig's longitudinal research is explicit: central offices default to monitoring. Transformation requires structural changes to job descriptions, meeting agendas, and accountability routines — not rhetoric.
05 Build a common instructional framework and teacher clarity.
Shared language and shared evidence about quality instruction is the precondition for coherent coaching, PD, and evaluation.
06 Align professional learning to the framework.
End the PD catalog. Effective professional learning is content-focused, incorporates active learning and collaboration, uses models of effective practice, provides coaching and feedback, and is of sustained duration.
07 Build coherent data systems and data literacy.
Districts are data-rich and information-poor. Information flow — who sees what data, at what cadence, connected to what decision — must be designed. Dashboards without literacy produce surveillance, not improvement.
08 Stand up MTSS — but only after Tier 1 is verifiably strong.
MTSS layered over an incoherent Tier 1 becomes a referral machine that mislabels instructional failure as student deficit. Universal instruction must be effective before tiered supports can function as designed.
09 Develop principal instructional leadership capacity.
The Wallace Foundation synthesis of two decades of research concludes that effective principals produce learning gains comparable to those of effective teachers — across more students. A district cannot be more coherent than its principals are prepared to be.
10 Embed continuous improvement infrastructure.
Build networked improvement communities, plan-do-study-act cycles, and feedback loops that persist beyond any single superintendency. Without this architecture, gains from Years 1–5 regress when leadership turns over.
III. The Threshold Condition
Leadership stability is not a best practice for this work. It is a threshold condition for it. Bryk et al. (2010) found that durable improvement outcomes required 5–7 years with stable leadership. Fullan is consistent across his published work: coherence is a minimum five-year horizon. Where a district has superintendent turnover, board instability, or a three-year strategic plan cadence that resets priorities, no technical sequencing delivers coherence. Such districts should compress the diagnostic (Steps 1–3) into Year 1 and bind successors to the theory of action through board policy — not personality. Without that binding, the work does not survive transition.
IV. Open Access & Citation
This document is released as an open resource for district leaders, school leaders, boards, and practitioners. Districts are encouraged to use it as a starting point for multi-year coherence work, reference it in strategic plans and board materials, and adapt its language to local context.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). You are free to share and adapt this material for non-commercial purposes — including district strategic planning, board deliberation, professional learning, and academic use — provided appropriate credit is given. Commercial use requires separate written permission.
Simmons, N. (2026). The District Coherence Sequence: A research-grounded starting point for 5–7 year systemic work. ForwardEd. https://forwarded.consulting
Sources
Works marked with ‡ are peer-reviewed journal articles. Others are foundational scholarly monographs, systematic reviews, or research reports from established research organizations.
- Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
- Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
- Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
- City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press.
- Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.
- Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. ‡
- Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Harvard Education Press.
- Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. ‡
- Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and systems. Corwin.
- Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace Foundation.
- Hatch, T. (2002). When improvement programs collide. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 626–639. ‡
- Honig, M. I. (2012). District central office leadership as teaching: How central office administrators support principals' development as instructional leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 733–774. ‡
- Honig, M. I., Copland, M. A., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. A., & Newton, M. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
- Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 4–11. ‡
- Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). ASCD.
- Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation.
- Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). Data literacy for educators: Making it count in teacher preparation and practice. Teachers College Press.
- Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. RAND Corporation.
- Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. ASCD.
- TNTP. (2018). The opportunity myth: What students can show us about how school is letting them down — and how to fix it. TNTP.