We have worked with some districts that have many of these essential actions in place, and others that have few. For those in the latter category, there is the pressing question of where to begin. The listing of 1 through 10, though it has an internal logic, is not a necessary sequence for action nor an indication of order of importance.

In one sense, a broad vision of high-quality instruction that cuts across content areas undergirds all other actions. And yet, the fundamental message is that the adults throughout the system must work toward that shared instructional vision—an outcome that is far more likely if they have had a voice prior to its being finalized as the district’s vision. For that reason, strengthening lines of communication may warrant the initial priority. In particular, if the district has a history of division between Leadership and C&I departments, bringing both groups into a collaborative effort to refine the district’s vision of high-quality instruction would be a productive starting place. It would provide an immediate purpose for establishing routine meeting times and norms for interaction in those meetings. We have seen districts in which the capacity of individuals is greatly underutilized because, unwittingly or not, they do not recognize the value of other’s expertise. If these cross departmental teams begin to work collaboratively on a specific goal and develop a sense of collective efficacy, they will be well positioned for the remaining essential actions.

Articulating a vision can be done at the same time that school leaders and their district supervisors begin to work collaboratively to make schools a place where students (and adults) have a strong sense of belonging. Working on belongingness early has several benefits. The same sense of productive collaboration that is engendered as district leaders from different departments work on a district-wide vision can be engendered among the adults in a school who collaborate on the goal of supporting student identity and belongingness. There are research findings indicating that a sense of collective efficacy among the adults in a school is far more powerful in producing improvement than a sense of individual efficacy. <27> There are straightforward, effective, low-cost strategies for increasing students’ sense of belonging. If teachers see the impact of their shared efforts, the enhanced collective efficacy will provide a foundation for later work on instructional improvement.

Once a district-wide vision of high-quality instruction is established, it is important to recognize that the vision-development task is not complete; content area teams at the district and school levels will need to interpret and elaborate that vision for their particular content areas. While the district’s content area leaders are the natural candidates for this effort, the implementation of change in response to the content-specific instructional visions will be greatly enhanced by a sense of ownership among those who will actually do the work of improving what happens in classrooms. Strengthening the relationship between central office and school-based instructional leaders, and developing pathways for the central office to “listen up” from the classroom, must be done simultaneously with the articulation of content-specific visions to enhance the conditions for later implementation. 

A step that must precede several others is the adoption of (or recommitment to) high-quality instructional materials. While C&I will have the greatest expertise for this task, involving the Leadership team is essential to minimizing later tensions. If the Leadership department has been involved in the decision, and fully understands the rationale for the adoption, the likelihood of a collaborative problem-solving approach to implementation challenges increases. Actively “listening up” from the schools before any final decisions about the adoption of instructional materials are made will make it possible to address concerns proactively and provide adequate support for implementation, thus reducing later resistance. If a top-down approach is used, it is more likely that teachers and school leaders who encounter implementation problems will not be committed to the work required for success. 

It is important to coordinate instructional materials selection with the planning of supplemental supports for students who are currently struggling in a particular content area. All too often, this task is delegated to schools, regardless of their capacity. The consequence of failing to address this issue adequately is major: students who are currently struggling are frequently placed in intervention classes that rarely provide them with an on-ramp to success in core instruction. The pervasiveness of the problem can be seen in the large numbers of students across the nation who do not meet proficiency standards. Providing these students with adequate support will be easier if strong connections have already been built between Leadership and C&I because school management tasks, such as scheduling, staff assignments, and coordination between the core and support teachers, are essential to success. Leadership, rather than C&I, typically communicates with school leaders regarding these management tasks. 

When making decisions about instructional materials, it is important to assess the kinds of professional learning supports that teachers will need if they are to implement the materials successfully. To be done well, that assessment must be informed by on-the-ground observations of teachers’ current practice in relation to the vision of high-quality instruction inherent in the materials. Content specialists in Curriculum and Instruction are typically best prepared to make these assessments, in partnership with school-based coaches or other instructional leaders who understand the vision of high-quality instruction and the learning necessary to attain that vision. 

In addition to assessing teacher capacity, it is critical to take account of the district’s current capacity to support teachers’ learning; the quality of the facilitation of professional learning opportunities is a major determinant of the effectiveness of supports for teachers’ learning. In many of the districts with which we have partnered, particularly at the start of instructional improvement initiatives, people with the necessary expertise to support teachers’ learning, especially of more nuanced instructional practices, have been few and far between. There must be a plan from the start for how to leverage existing capacity and expand that capacity over time. For example, one district with which we worked identified the three most effective school-based coaches and made them district-wide coaches who worked with grade-level groups of teachers. Leaders in another district in which expertise in supporting teachers’ learning was also thin on the ground partnered with an outside organization to provide high-quality professional development to teachers. The district leaders also recognized the importance of growing a cadre of internal professional learning leaders. They carefully selected teachers and coaches who had expertise in teaching aligned with their guiding instructional vision to serve as district-wide coaches, and hired the outside organization to provide them with ongoing PD that focused on developing their expertise in supporting teachers. In both of these examples, investing in the development of professional learning leaders paid off in the long run.