K-12 District Wide Implementation of Improvement Science and the Leadership Conditions that Support High Quality PDSA Cycles at Schools

AbstractThere are many districts across the state of California which are implementing improvement science to improve student outcomes, however there is a scarcity of research on the wide scale implementation of improvement science at the K-12 level. This qualitative study used individual, semi-structured interviews to explore the district-wide implementation of improvement science at the school level to improve student outcomes across a large urban school district, Tree Unified School District, (TUSD). Moreover, this study explores the leadership conditions that support high quality, iterative PDSAs (Plan Do Study Act cycles) at school sites, as school teams towards improving student outcomes. Within this study, the conditions for change at both the district and school levels are explored using the four components of Fullan’s Coherence Framework; focusing direction; cultivating collaborative cultures; deepening learning; and securing accountability. A total of eleven (11) individual interviews were conducted as follows; principal supervisors (3); principals of schools which had experienced success with implementing high quality iterative PDSAs at their school sites (3); curriculum and instruction management who had supported the implementation of improvement science across the district in their respective areas of math, English language arts, and social and emotional learning (3); and training specialists who directly supported school based teams at schools which had experienced success with implementing high quality iterative PDSAs (2). A document analysis of schools’ PDSA cycles between September 2019 and March 2020 was also conducted. It was through this document analysis that schools which conducted high quality, iterative PDSAs were identified. The principals of the identified schools formed the purposefully sampled principals for individual interviews. The training specialists who supported these schools were also purposefully sampled. There were several positive aspects of implementation: with adequate time and third party support, principal supervisors grew into their role as providers of improvement science professional learning; invested principals, and curriculum and instruction support staff built significant capacity in the implementation of improvement science; invested principals developed a shared sense of accountability to one another for implementing the work; and improvement teams at invested school sites developed a common set of effective practices to engage in continuous improvement. There were also aspects which hindered implementation; many principals at TUSD did not engage authentically with the work of improvement science; the contentious relationship between the district and the teachers union stopped teachers from receiving high quality, professional learning from a third party, CORE Districts (CORE was originally called the California Office for Reform in Education, but is now known simply as CORE Districts) which resulted in teachers having less than adequate training to effectively engage in PDSA cycles; principal supervisors were not given the time to become proficient at improvement science before they were responsible for training principals; the district led with external accountability, mandating principal engagement in improvement science without first building the conditions for strong internal accountability; and very few schools, only 3 out of 77, engaged in high quality, iterative PDSA cycles. Even though there were few schools which managed to engage in high quality, iterative PDSAs, the researcher managed to gather rich data from the schools which did. The leadership conditions which supported high quality, iterative PDSA cycles at schools included the following; principals took an active role in the improvement team and championed the effort; principals were collaborative, and spent time coming with their improvement teams coming to consensus on a focused direction of what the student outcomes are that the team is trying to improve, and how the team will attempt to improve those outcomes; principals created a safe environment for teachers to take risks and to learn from failure; time and resources were invested in building teachers’ collective capacity to improve; success was used as a catalyst to deepen and broaden the work; principals spent a lot of effort and resources on creating a collaborative culture, which strengthened the conditions for strong internal accountability, before further bolstering accountability with the use of external accountability, in the form of transparency and deliverables. To effectively implement improvement science at schools, and to effectively engage school based teams in high quality, iterative PDSAs, the following recommendations should be taken into account: Size up the context for improvement to judge the scale of implementation. This is done by juxtaposing capacity to implement and willingness to engage. If in doubt, start small. Both capacity and will to scale up can be built during small scale implementation. Having expertise and support from a third party can help strengthen implementation. Adequate time and support should be provided to build internal capacity for all groups, including district leadership who are guiding the work, school based teams including teachers who are doing the work, and district capacity supporting teams, such as the curriculum and instruction department who support the work at school sites. The climate for change is key. If the change-climate is low, organizations can expect to be met with either inertia or resistance. Taking the time and effort to garner consensus on a focused direction is paramount to ensure participants engage authentically in the work. Organizations should create the conditions for strong internal accountability (trust, collaboration, non-judgmentalism, safe environment to question and make mistakes) before increasing external accountability (transparency, mandated deliverables). Organizations should make use of a change management framework, such as Fullan’s Coherence Framework to guide the organizational change process. Taking time to build a focused direction which is shared and owned by stakeholders and at the same time creating a culture of collaboration is the best starting place. The change climate can be monitored and adjustments can be made as appropriate. Indeed, the implementation of change could be an aspect that the organization applies the tenets of improvement science to