We’ve likely all seen or experienced schools where, on the surface, everything looks right: Clear vision? Check. Improvement plan? Check. Student support programs? Check. PLC meetings? Check.
Yet despite all these “right” things, nothing feels right. Despite ambitious visions and lip service to improvement, nothing is improving, and a malaise seems to have settled over the school.
Researchers at the University of Chicago conducted an in-depth analysis of two sets of high-poverty elementary and secondary schools (six demonstrating gains in student achievement and six stagnating or declining) that offers a compelling glimpse into what can go wrong in schools that get stuck—and what it takes to get it right (Gordon & Hart, 2022).
On the surface, the leaders in the stagnating schools were, indeed, doing many of the “right” things. They articulated ambitious visions for their schools, distributed leadership responsibilities, and sought to build positive school cultures.
Yet, their efforts fell flat. Staff didn’t buy into their visions and often harbored low expectations for students. Teacher trust and collaboration remained limited. So, what was missing?
The researchers found four “subtle but important differences” that contributed to leaders in improving schools being able to create cultures of organizational learning where staff were open to new ideas and focused on lifting all learners:
1. Aligning goals and activities with vision.
All the school leaders in the study articulated ambitious visions for their schools, but the strong leaders went a step further, aligning everything in the school with their vision. As the researchers observed, visions in improving schools “mirrored a tree with the goals branching from the trunk.” In contrast, in lower-performing schools, “the vision resembled less a tree and more a field of many flowers—where goals were scattered without anything tying them together” (p. 299).
2. Sharing leadership by empowering teachers.
Leaders in stagnating schools were keen to delegate key leadership tasks to others, whereas strong leaders coordinated these functions yet shared leadership decision-making. They empowered teachers to set grade-level goals for student learning and improvement, which in turn, resulted in teachers taking ownership of improvement plans and their own professional learning.
3. Setting aside time for purposeful collegial learning.
Leaders in stagnating and declining schools ostensibly valued teacher collaboration; however, their teachers reported that time for collaboration was often irregular and unstructured. In contrast, leaders in improving schools set aside regular (e.g., weekly time) for collaboration and guided conversations to focus on analyzing data and identifying ways to help students meet their goals.
4. Focusing on relationships and trust.
Strong leaders recognize they’re in a “people business.” As one leader in the study said, “The role of the leader is relationships and relationship building.” Accordingly, they established structures for teachers to collaborate and observe each other’s classrooms. To build trust, they ensured that data systems were diagnostic, not punitive.
While leaders can appear on paper to do all the right things, it takes a strong, consistent school leader to create a true culture of organizational learning. Creating such a culture starts with a leader who adopts a people-first approach to building a shared vision, goals, focus, and embrace of learning in their schools.
