Three Models for Real Change in Schools

Too often I worry that we approach assessment reform (or any reform really) the wrong way in schools. We start by focusing on the actions that we want teachers to take. What ends up happening, then, is that we have a list of things teachers need to do, minimal rationale for why they need to do them, and very little conceptual understanding and training in place for teachers to truly make sense of it beyond feeling the need to check the boxes. 

It shouldn’t be surprising at all to anyone when real, significant change doesn’t occur as a result. Change management has been studied for decades now, and schools should take some notes from the business world in terms of paying attention to models of change that have a history of success. Let’s look at a few of them and talk about how they apply to school change (specifically with assessment and grading practices). 

The Results Pyramid (Roger Conners and Tom Smith, introduced in their 2011 book Change the Culture, Change the Game) 

The results pyramid is one of the most important mindset shifts that needs to happen whenever we talk about grading and assessment reform. The problem is that most of the time the people who work in education did well in education and were successful with things the way they are. As a result, a reason for change typically doesn’t exist authentically for many educators. Because they had generally positive (I know I’m painting with a broad brush here) experiences, they have generally positive beliefs about existing grading and assessment practices, even when they may be harmful to a different type of student than they were. They just aren’t aware of it. 

What to do about it? 

Two things. 

First, gather voices from students about grading and assessment practices. My favorite way to do this is to survey students with three simple open-ended questions. (1) Do grades help you learn? (2) How do grades make you feel? (3) Why do teachers use grades? The responses from these questions are often enough to help teachers question their own experiences and beliefs as the one true story about grading and assessment. Here are some of the responses I’ve gotten from students in the past.

Second, discuss sample scenarios in terms of grading and assessment. This is my favorite set of scenarios to use. I like using the scenarios because it depersonalized the grading conversation. When we ask people to examine their own grading practices or grade books, it gets personal and people get defensive. Grading practices are laden with feelings of personal values and beliefs about the purpose of education, so allowing people to step away from that and discuss hypotheticals can really open doors that would be closed by defensiveness.

These two steps really help to lay the groundwork of helping people question their own experience with grading to then open up conversations that need to be had before we jump straight to grading practices. 

Lippitt-Knoster Model for Managing Complex Change (developed by Mary Lippitt in 1987 and expanded upon by Timothy Knoster 2000)

Once the groundwork has been done in terms of experiences and beliefs to get everyone on the same page in terms of why change needs to happen, then it becomes time to really roll it out. The roll-out process is where things can go off the rails really quickly. I love the Lippitt-Knoster model for helping to identify the ways it can go off the rails to be able to better avoid those complications. 

The model identifies the six key pieces of change and what happens if any of those pieces are missing. Not only is it helpful in planning up front, but it’s also helpful when the change starts to have issues. You can identify what the symptom is and then go in and address the element that needs focus. 

Let’s look at how this can help with grading and assessment reform. Really, it lays out a plan for any committee or pilot team to follow. 

1. First, what is the vision, the ideal? Where are things heading and why does it matter?

2. Second, can we come to an agreement on key elements? This could be within in the committee, but eventually it should be building-wide or district-wide. It’s often helpful to really have this as something that is physically committed to through something like signing a printed poster of agreements.

3. Third, what training needs to happen? As a step before that, even being able to list out the skills or create a progression to help teachers know what would be helpful to focus their professional learning on. (Here’s an example of one I use with schools for assessment practices.)

4. Fourth, what incentives are available to thank teachers for engaging in the change? This doesn’t always have to be pay (but let’s be real, it’s never a bad idea), but the question really is about finding ways to show teachers that you are grateful for their efforts in a targeted and intentional way.

5. Fifth, how do we supply the resources needed for change? Here’s a hint: time. Time is the most important resource to think about when it comes to change. Can you get subs for planning days? Can you pay extra to have workshops after school?

6. Sixth, what are the steps we are committing to following? This is usually a timeline. Where are we going, what are we doing, and when are we aiming to do it?

Street Data (from the 2021 book Street Data by Jamila Dugan and Shane Safir)

Okay, admittedly, this isn’t actually a model for change in the same sense as the previous models, but this is arguably the most important of the three. 

If you haven’t yet read Street Data by Jamila Dugan and Shane Safir, I would highly recommend it. While I may not agree with the extent to which they disavow quantitative data in the book, they bring up an incredibly important point. We often can obscure the truth when we focus entirely on numbers to measure success. Put in other words, schools are notoriously bad at cherry picking the data they want and interpreting it however suits their needs. 

Many schools do this with graduation rates currently. In response to the question, “Are students learning more?” or “Is our instruction getting better?” many schools will throw out a high graduation rate as evidence to support an affirmative answer. The reality, though, is often that high graduation rate is a representation of lowering expectations while building up recovery systems to help students achieve the necessary credits they need to “earn” a diploma. (To clarify, as a big advocate for alternative learning experiences, I do believe there is value in having programs for students who fall behind or don’t fit the mold school forces on students, but that’s a different topic.)

This same scenario could be said of touting a teacher with a high (or even low) passing rate as evidence of rigorous instruction, low college acceptance rates as evidence of a high-quality education institution, or any other number of scenarios in education where data is used in place of reality. 

This is where Dugan and Safir’s book comes in. To put a beautifully complex concept much too simply, their focus in Street Data is really on listening to kids, teachers, and others involved in the educational process. 

Why does this matter when it comes to change and reform?

Well, at some point you have to ask, “Is this working?” This gets really tricky when it comes to grading and assessment reform because the data may not tell the true story. For example, when I switched to a standards-based grading model, the number of As in my classes decreased. For some, that might be an indicator that the change failed. However, when I talked to students, many of them said that they were actually being held accountable for learning things that they had never actually learned in the past. To me, that’s a sign of success that the numbers were obscuring. 

So, once the change has been implemented, I’m not saying don’t focus at all on quantitative data, but I’m saying that there needs to be intentionality around also gathering qualitative data to determine whether or not the change is working.

Because that’s really the point of everything we should be doing to make education better and to pursue innovative learning environments, right? 

To make the experience more meaningful, more personal, and more powerful for the kids we serve in our schools.