CISGF

Complexity-Informed School Governance Framework (CISGF)

Components of the School Governance Framework

At the core of the proposed School Governance Framework (see Figure 1) is a staged model that integrates theoretical principles with practical processes school leaders can follow in navigating complex governance environments. Each stage is rooted in well-established theories, adaptive leadership, systems thinking, complexity theory, and sustainability-based school governance, which collectively provide both the logic and structure for decision-making in schools.

Diagnosis

The entry point of the School Governance Framework, draws heavily from the principles of Adaptive Leadership (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). This stage challenges school leaders to go beyond surface-level compliance and to critically distinguish between technical problems, which have known solutions and standard operating procedures, and adaptive challenges, which require deeper inquiry, stakeholder engagement, and often, a shift in entrenched beliefs and practices.

Rooted in the idea that not all problems can be solved with existing expertise, this stage positions leadership as a learning process rather than a command function. Heifetz and Laurie (1997) argue that adaptive leadership “requires experiments, discoveries, and adjustments from numerous places in the organization” rather than the mere application of expert knowledge. In the context of public schools, this entails reframing persistent concerns, such as learner underperformance, low MOOE utilization, and fragmented planning cycles, not as isolated malfunctions, but as symptoms of deeper systemic tensions.

To operationalize this diagnostic orientation, the framework suggests the following steps:

1. Surface and List Key School-Level Challenges: Collect recurring issues from planning documents (e.g., SIP, AIP), administrative records, and informal consultations. Avoid premature categorization.

2. Distinguish Technical from Adaptive: Facilitate internal dialogues to ask: “Which issues have clear protocols? Which persist despite existing solutions?” For example, delays in procurement might be technical, but habitual underutilization of MOOE often signals adaptive hesitations rooted in fear of audit or lack of capacity.

3. Use the “5 Whys” Technique: Guide the team through multiple levels of inquiry to identify root causes, especially for adaptive challenges. This cultivates critical thinking and unearths hidden patterns.

4. Identify Recurring Patterns: Use reflection tools like problem trees or causal maps to look for systemic linkages across seemingly unrelated issues. Are classroom shortages linked to enrollment forecasting failures? Is disengaged parental involvement connected to communication strategies?

5. Prepare for Systemic Thinking: Conclude the diagnosis phase with an acknowledgment that not all issues will have linear solutions. Leaders must prepare themselves and their teams to hold ambiguity and complexity.

The effectiveness of this stage has been demonstrated in high-pressure contexts. Uhl-Bien and Arena (2021), in their study of school leadership responses during the COVID-19 crisis, found that institutions that “paused to diagnose, interpret, and listen” were more adaptive than those that immediately imposed pre-packaged solutions. These schools cultivated “adaptive spaces” where reflection, creativity, and collective learning could thrive, traits directly supported by this diagnostic phase.

Mapping

The second stage of the School Governance Framework, operationalizes the core principles of systems thinking as articulated by Sterman (2003) and Meadows (2008). At this point in the framework, school leaders and planning teams move from recognizing high-leverage challenges (identified in the Focus stage) to understanding the deeper systemic structures that generate and sustain them. This is accomplished through the use of Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs)-a hallmark tool in systems analysis-which serve to expose feedback loops, delays, and repeating system archetypes that shape school dynamics.

The Mapping stage acknowledges that many school-level issues-such as low stakeholder engagement, poor monitoring and evaluation practices, and underutilized financial resources-do not exist in isolation. Rather, they are symptoms of interconnected processes that reinforce or constrain one another over time. For instance, weak monitoring may lead to ineffective implementation, which in turn reduces stakeholder confidence, further weakening engagement in future cycles-a reinforcing loop that silently entrenches dysfunction.

By visually plotting these relationships through CLDs, school leaders begin to shift their mental models from linear thinking ("if X, then Y") to systems thinking ("X and Y reinforce Z, which loops back into X"). Meadows (2008) emphasized this cognitive shift as essential to finding "leverage points"-places in a system where a small intervention can produce large, lasting changes.

In practice, the Mapping stage involves the following key steps:

1. Generate Variables from Prior Stages: Begin with the priority challenges identified in the Diagnosis and Focus stages. Break these into specific, observable variables (e.g., "timeliness of disbursement," "teacher motivation," "parental trust").

2. Construct Initial Feedback Loops: Use collaborative systems mapping to explore cause-and-effect relationships among variables. Teams draw CLDs to identify reinforcing (R) and balancing (B) loops that govern the behavior of school processes over time.

3. Identify Delays and Nonlinear Effects: Encourage the team to recognize time lags and unintended consequences. For example, a policy intervention today may not yield results until the next planning cycle-delays that, if ignored, can lead to misinterpretation or misattribution.

4. Surface System Archetypes: Look for recurring structures like "Shifting the Burden," "Limits to Growth," or "Fixes That Fail." Recognizing these archetypes helps the team understand why some interventions succeed briefly but collapse later (Sterman, 2002).

5. Validate the Map Collaboratively: Share the draft CLD with broader planning stakeholders to test assumptions and refine loop logic. As part of the validation session at San Agustin National High School, participants expressed that seeing the map "allowed us to finally understand why things keep looping back despite our efforts."

The value of this stage is not only diagnostic; it is developmental. It cultivates a new habit of mind among school teams: the ability to think in relationships rather than silos, and to recognize that persistent problems are often structurally supported, not individually caused. As Meadows (2008) famously wrote, "The behavior of a system cannot be known just by knowing its elements. The interconnections and purpose are equally crucial." Through the Mapping stage, schools begin to uncover these interconnections, laying the groundwork for more thoughtful, aligned, and strategic responses in the stages that follow.

Focus

The third stage of the School Governance Framework is grounded in complexity theory (Davis & Sumara, 2006) and systems thinking (Sterman, 2003), which jointly emphasize that not all problems in a system hold equal weight or impact. In complex educational environments, issues are rarely isolated; instead, they emerge from intricate feedback dynamics. The Focus stage enables school leaders to identify and prioritize high-leverage challenges, those with the potential to generate transformative ripple effects across multiple domains of school functioning.

Rather than dispersing attention and resources across numerous isolated issues, this stage prompts leaders to concentrate their strategic efforts on root causes that hold the most promise for system-wide improvement. Complexity theory argues that these leverage points are often non-obvious and require deep pattern recognition. Davis and Sumara (2006) explain that “within a complex system, it is not the magnitude but the connectivity of a variable that determines its influence.” Thus, effective school leadership requires discerning which issues, when addressed, will shift broader dynamics, even if they appear peripheral at first glance.

In practical terms, this means going beyond the surface. For instance, a recurring issue such as low budget absorption may initially appear as a financial management concern. However, through systems thinking, school leaders may uncover deeper structural roots: misaligned planning timelines, inadequate stakeholder engagement, or unclear accountability roles. This reflective diagnosis reframes the issue and invites more strategic responses. The RISE Programme (Spivack & Silberstein, 2023) reinforces this principle by emphasizing “strategic coherence,” where reform initiatives are most effective when schools achieve clarity in how problems are framed and how interventions are sequenced. According to their findings, “systems that try to fix everything at once often fix nothing at all,” suggesting the necessity of focused reform anchored in systemic understanding.

To operationalize the Focus stage, the framework proposes the following steps:

1. Analyze Feedback Loops for Influence: Return to the Causal Loop Diagrams generated during the Mapping phase. Identify which variables are situated at key junctions in reinforcing or balancing loops, these are likely leverage points.

2. Assess Root Causes Using Systems Criteria: Apply systems thinking prompts to ask: Which issues affect multiple subsystems? Which problems reappear despite previous interventions? Which concerns are structural rather than symptomatic?

3. Conduct a Prioritization Exercise: Use tools like an Impact-Effort Matrix or Problem Prioritization Matrix to sort identified issues. The goal is to focus on those that offer high systemic impact and feasible intervention strategies.

4. Define Strategic Focus Areas: Articulate 1–3 clearly framed focus areas, each tied to specific feedback loops and outcomes. Ensure these align with national policy (e.g., DepEd Orders) and the school’s vision and goals.

5. Communicate and Align: Share the focus areas with key stakeholders. Adaptive leadership literature reminds us that for strategic coherence to take root, shared understanding and commitment must follow (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).

Ultimately, the Focus stage empowers school leaders to be selective without being narrow, and decisive without being rigid. It positions them not only to manage complexity but to lead within it. As Meadows (2008) asserts, “Leverage points are not intuitive, but they are powerful. Identifying them requires a shift in thinking, from reacting to patterns to reshaping them.”

Leverage

The fourth stage of the framework is grounded in Meadows’ (2008) theory of leverage points, strategic places within a system where a well-targeted shift can yield significant, system-wide effects. In school governance, this stage helps leaders focus efforts on high-impact interventions rather than diffuse, low-yield activities.

This stage involves the following four-step process:

1. Identify Repeating Pain Points: School leaders can revisit the outputs from the Mapping and Grounding stages, particularly the causal loops and validated problem areas, and scan for nodes where issues converge or reinforce one another. For example, if learner underperformance, weak monitoring, and teacher fatigue all link to poor alignment of planning instruments, that junction becomes a potential leverage point.

2. Evaluate Potential System Impact: Borrowing from Meadows’ concept of systemic sensitivity, leaders assess where small changes (e.g., adjusting planning timelines, improving meeting formats, updating data-sharing protocols) could improve multiple outcomes at once. As Meadows (2008) asserts, “the power to transcend paradigms” often lies in changing information flows or rules rather than structure alone.

3. Assess Feasibility and Stakeholder Readiness:  Using insights from adaptive leadership, school teams consider stakeholder capacity, institutional norms, and implementation risks. Even technically sound leverage points may fail without sufficient buy-in. Thus, intervention feasibility, including resource availability, resistance risks, and alignment with DepEd orders, must be weighed.

4. Design Focused, Scalable Interventions: After prioritization, the team develops one to three focused actions targeting those leverage points. These are not generic programs, but contextually embedded changes such as realigning SIP-AIP-APP calendars to avoid fragmented procurement, assigning a cross-functional M&E team to provide monthly feedback loops, and deploying a shared digital tracker for committee deliverables.

This strategic targeting process reflects findings from Prabawani et al. (2022), who observed that schools with “purposefully designed micro-interventions” produced more sustainable reforms than those applying broad, top-down mandates. Similarly, by Kioupi and Voulvoulis (2019) emphasize that institutional coherence is best achieved through micro-level governance alignments, particularly in decentralized systems. By anchoring this stage in systems theory, adaptive practice, and real-world feasibility, the framework empowers school leaders to act deliberately, not reactively, ensuring that interventions address not just symptoms but key points of systemic influence.

Grounding

Grounding, the fifth stage of the framework, operationalizes both adaptive leadership (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997) and local policy structures, notably the School-Based Management (SBM) Framework and DepEd Orders such as DO No. 007, s. 2024. It ensures that proposed actions are not only strategically sound but contextually valid and policy-compliant.

The stage follows this four-step sequence:

1. Policy Cross-Referencing: Teams begin by mapping their proposed interventions against relevant DepEd policies and legal mandates. For instance, if the SIP proposes budget reallocations or community partnerships, these are checked against the MOOE guidelines, SBM dimensions, and governance protocols. This aligns with Kioupi and Voulvoulis (2019), who noted that frameworks not explicitly grounded in local policy “often lose traction despite technical sophistication.”

2. Cultural and Normative Alignment: Drawing from adaptive leadership’s value on “navigating competing commitments,” leaders reflect on whether interventions respect school norms, values, and organizational culture. For example, does the plan build on existing practices? Does it respect decision-making hierarchies? This step helps prevent reform fatigue and promotes cultural resonance, especially in traditionally structured schools.

3. Stakeholder Feedback Integration: Leaders present proposed changes in mini-feedback loops to governance committee chairs, key faculty, or parent reps. This isn't just validation, it's a reality-check phase. Adaptive leadership emphasizes the need for “leadership in the balcony,” where leaders zoom out to gather multiple perspectives. This consultative loop refines interventions for feasibility and legitimacy.

4. Recalibration and Documentation: Based on validation inputs, school leaders revise the proposed interventions to match policy, culture, and resource limitations. All changes are formally encoded in planning instruments (SIP, AIP) and shared back with stakeholders. This step completes the institutionalization process, shifting ideas from theory to commitment.

In this way, Grounding acts as a reality filter. It tempers innovation with institutional logic, helping school teams ensure that bold ideas don’t collapse under procedural or cultural resistance. It reflects the hybrid wisdom of adaptive leadership and systems alignment, acknowledging that no matter how powerful an idea is, “if it doesn’t fit the current system, it won’t hold” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).

Execution

This stage marks the operational translation of system-informed insights into implementable, resilient action plans. Drawing on systems thinking (Sterman, 2003; Meadows, 2008), this phase emphasizes feedback sensitivity, delay awareness, and continuous learning, recognizing that change is not a one-shot initiative but an evolving, iterative process.

It is also deeply aligned with Uhl-Bien and Arena's (2021) notion of "adaptive space," which describes the organizational environments where strategic execution and real-time learning co-exist. In such a space, action and reflection are not separated, but intertwined to create dynamic responsiveness.

This stage involves the following four-step process:

1. Operational Translation of Framework Outputs: Each strategic intervention identified in the earlier stages is translated into concrete activities, timelines, and roles within planning instruments (SIP, AIP, APP). Leaders move from “why” and “what” to “how” and “who.” Systems thinking here ensures that downstream effects and time delays are anticipated during task sequencing and resource allocation. For example, aligning the budget calendar with stakeholder activities to avoid underspending, a delay-sensitive maneuver.

2. Feedback Loop Design: Execution must not be static. School teams institutionalize formal and informal feedback mechanisms to track implementation progress and adapt accordingly. These include: periodic reflection huddles, data dashboards visualizing progress indicators, and regular review sessions embedded in the school calendar. This echoes Meadows’ (2008) principle of placing feedback where it can be heard, enhancing system responsiveness.

3. Learning and Adjustment Cycle: Based on gathered feedback, school teams make timely mid-course corrections. This supports adaptive execution, where flexibility trumps rigidity. Leaders are trained to treat “plans as hypotheses,” using reflection data to revise strategies without losing sight of broader goals. Uhl-Bien and Arena (2021) call this capacity adaptive space cultivation, the fostering of environments where implementation and learning occur simultaneously.

4. Institutional Memory and Knowledge Transfer: Finally, the team documents learnings, bottlenecks, and emergent best practices to preserve institutional memory. This archive supports future planning cycles and builds organizational learning, a cornerstone of sustainable governance. As Davis and Sumara (2006) remind us, complex systems evolve best when learning is “distributed and accumulative.”

The Execution stage embodies the philosophy that planning is never finished once the ink dries. Instead, it becomes a living system of decisions, actions, observations, and refinements. This phase closes the loop, while laying the foundation for the next planning cycle.

Together, the stages represent an iterative and cyclical governance model that promotes coherence across the diagnostic, strategic, and operational levels of school leadership. The synthesis of theory and practice, as embodied in Table 1 and Figure 1, addresses a key literature gap, offering not only a theoretically robust model but also an actionable tool for school leaders in the Philippine public education system and beyond.