The When, Why, and How of Making a Mid-Course Correction

One of the biggest criticisms of school reform is that there is too much change, too fast, and it becomes impossible to manage (read more here). I have even blogged about it in previous posts (http://turnaroundschool.blogspot.com/2015/08/detour.html, http://turnaroundschool.blogspot.com/2015/03/managing-vision.html, http://turnaroundschool.blogspot.com/2015/02/leading-people-not-just-leading-change.html). So, I know that making a mid-course correction (aka change) needs to be for the right reasons and must be managed and marketed well.

This week, I have been grappling with making two shifts in the way we do business in my school. One has to do with assessment, and the other has to do with instructional coaching. School culture is an interesting thing, because it can become established and normed with or without direct leadership. Sometimes the messages that we send as a leader can be interpreted differently and we can end up with a result that does not match our intent. It is so important for us as leaders to continually check to make sure that what we say is really what we mean and that what we mean is really being heard (I refer to this as "inspect what you expect"). Without continual discourse, questioning, and observation/feedback, educators quickly fall into the dreaded cycle of "That's The Way We've Always Done It." Even in a turnaround school, where the goals, targets, initiatives, and observation/feedback are clearly outlined and continually referred to, people's perceptions can be a powerful ingredient of TTWWADI. This is why we have to carefully decide when, why, and how we should make adjustments to our plan.

My first possible course correction of the week had to do with assessment, data collection, our building targets, and our requirements to State Ed. through our receivership status. Clearly, not something small with little impact. The short story is that our shifts in curriculum at Kindergarten and 1st Grade (we are using Core Knowledge or CKLA) no longer clearly aligns with the use of Running Records to track student growth and progress in reading. However, all of our data points and targets that are reported to the district and the state are based on Running Records. So, that's the why of a course correction - my teachers were feeling like they were over assessing our children and not getting the kind of accurate data that really aligned to and informed their practice. The when was clear, too - now. We just finished our 2nd round of Running Records and the gaps were clear, the teachers could clearly articulate the need for change and my instructional coach, Instructional Leadership Team, and I all agreed. Let's shift our practice. So then there's the how. In a change like this, there are several layers to be considered. First, the teachers. Does everyone fully understand the change that we are making and how/when will we check in on this understanding and implementation? Second, the students. We have built a strong culture of goal setting and students and parents both understand what level they are on with a letter from their Running Records (see below).

Traditional Fountas and Pinnell chart for Running Records with Lexile conversion

We had to have a clear vision of how we would shift this for students and families in order to help them understand the why and the how of our adjustment. Third, I had the data reporting piece. All of our targets that are reported to State Ed. require Running Records as an indicator, so for this school-year, I have to continue to use that as a metric, and although I can certainly explain why our percentages look like they are not moving based on the new information and new data, I need to continue to have that data point as a reference. So, we decided to create a conversion from CKLA to Running Records that will allow for our own internal tracking along the Running Records target and will allow teachers to just use the CKLA data as an assessment tool. That buys us some time with the ability to publicly change the targets and market them to students/parents/families. The next step - following up to see if what we decided is in practice - is on me and my instructional coach (which actually leads to my second big adjustment of the week!).

The second big decision was around instructional coaching. The practice of instructional coaching throughout my district has become less classroom based with observation and feedback and more focused on delivering professional development/leading team meetings/ and intense coaching/feedback cycles that are very time consuming and require heavy documentation. My challenge was to increase the amount of time that coaches are able to be in classrooms by removing their perceived barriers and adjusting my weekly check-ins with them so that I can "inspect what I expect." So, the why was clear - we are not going to see the kinds of results in student achievement that we need without continual feedback and rehearsal in instructional delivery and the coaches need to be in classrooms in order to make that happen. The when of making this change requires building capacity and clarifying the vision with multiple stakeholders. It also requires shifting some responsibilities that coaches previously held to members of my administrative team, so the when for us is over the next two weeks. The how is largely on me because so much of the visioning and checking in will be on me. My plan is to have several face to face meetings with the coaches, my vice-principals, and the teachers who will be part of phase one of the coaching plan in order to discuss the shifts and to accompany that with a written plan. I also need to have some release of expectations from Central Office so that my coaches can feel like they are able to focus primarily on classroom coaching and that their level of documentation for those coaching cycles will be at the building level. This means that for the next several weeks, this needs to be a priority for me as well and I need to purposefully build time into my schedule to "inspect what I expect."

Mid-course corrections can and should happen. A turnaround leader should be constantly aware of what is working and what is not working in his/her building. In order to keep the momentum and keep people's trust in your vision and leadership high, it is essential to think through how these mid-course corrections will be implemented and why. A strong turnaround leader has to be able to say "no" when there is a directive from above that does not align with the work of the turnaround plan and also has to be able to advocate for differentiation in leadership support - one size definitely does not fit all in school turnaround. As a turnaround leader, it is critical that we are always one step ahead and have a clear vision of where we are headed so that we can handle mid-course corrections as a natural part of moving our staff, our students, and our school from under-achieving to highly achieving.