Q&A: A Deep Dive Into Systemwide Support for Stronger Instruction

During a recent webinar, President Eugene Pinkard and Senior Director of Custom Strategy Laken Detchemendy answered educators’ questions about the findings from our latest white paper, Systemwide Support for Stronger Instruction.

We’ve compiled the highlights below, featuring insights on change management, the role of evaluation in building role clarity, and more.

These responses have been edited for brevity and clarity. You can access the full webinar recording here.

Can you talk about what might be involved in having multiple models of leadership distribution? How does that complicate management?

Laken Detchemendy:

One of the large districts we worked with during this project determined that multiple models of distribution was the best path forward for their context. They have suburban schools and some smaller rural schools, and the staffing is different in all of them. They recognized early on that there wasn’t one model they could use to accomplish their goals around instructional leadership, and that they were going to have to have some flexibility. That meant they needed to get really clear on nonnegotiable expectations, such as requiring 45 minutes of collaborative planning per week.

The multiple models allowed schools and principals to look at the composition of their school leadership team and determine what would work best for them. For example: “Who do we have at the school who can actually support these activities? We have a coach, we have an AP, we have a principal.” Then, “Who is best suited to support these?” There are some principals who really like the operational aspect of their job, and know they have a coach who is stronger instructionally. There are some that know that they’re really strong instructionally, and have an AP who can help with operations. The models gave principals the ability to be flexible based on the positions and strengths they had.

Because the district was going to support multiple models, they also needed to provide different types of support to different people. For example, the district needs to ensure that people are trained to support and facilitate collaborative planning, and that looks different at different schools. Sometimes they’re training the principal for that, sometimes they’re training an instructional coach. Sometimes it’s a teacher leader or a department chair. The models made it possible to give some flexibility while keeping the bar the same, and then the district made sure to tailor the support to those models as well.

What is the role of evaluation when clarifying expectations for school leaders?

Gene Pinkard:

Evaluation is part and parcel of this work—it’s an integral part of instructional leadership. When role clarity has taken hold, you’re expanding the bandwidth of school leaders to build meaningful and consistent feedback cycles that feel supportive, not just like pop-in monitoring. When leaders are able to dedicate more time to seeing and observing instruction, not every visit is a high-stakes evaluation.

The other reality is that for teachers, for school leaders, and for central office folks, we’re going to be having some tough conversations at times. If folks have been working in a different model, and the district now wants to ensure that we have consistent instructional leadership across the board, it will lead to an honest understanding of where a leader is or is not aligned to expectations. But what we know is that clear is kind. Role clarity allows both the system and the leader to say, “Okay, here’s what we’re focused on, so here’s the work that we need to do.”

What kind of trade-offs do districts face when requiring a high level of consistency from school to school and leader to leader?

Laken Detchemendy:

The trade-off is flexibility. There’s less flexibility when you have that much consistency. But what leaders told us is that the structure really protects instructional time, so they’re not constantly chasing the next urgent thing. They’re really able to focus on instruction. And that clarity has also helped shape the district’s feedback culture. Observations are used to truly coach teachers and prompt reflection, rather than to simply tell them what to do next. Teachers are more willing to adjust and practice, and they’re more comfortable asking for support when they need it.

What lessons have you learned about change management from your work on systemwide role clarity?

Gene Pinkard:

The steps we describe in the paper have some elements of sound change management built in. We focus on the teacher experience that we want to have, and that’s the vision. And then you start planning from there: what are our goals and the observable practices? You’ll determine who’s going to do what. And then you get all the way down to monitoring, ensuring that the work is happening. So it’s not, “How do we make principals’ jobs easier?” It’s, “What’s our vision for what’s happening in a classroom? What’s our vision for how leaders are moving instruction forward?” And that vision becomes the anchor of the change management conversation.

And when something isn’t in service of that vision, whether it’s at the central office or in the building, now you can say, okay, is this actually essential? That helps determine some of the offloads. If it’s not helping the leader improve instruction, then do we really want them doing it? Sometimes the answer will still be yes, because there aren’t an infinite number of people, but that does help us test whether it’s really essential. More broadly, when we’re talking about conditions for this work, we’re talking about the time, the tools, the routines, the way the team is structured, and the data we use to make decisions. These are the conditions that have to exist in any setting, whether it’s a school with an AP or not, whether it’s a big school or a small school, for us to be effective.