Implementing initiatives in school: A Headteacher Update Series
- Part 1: Why we must begin with de-implementation. Published April 30
- Part 2: Step one is discover: Published May 5
- Part 3: Step two is design: Published May 13
- Part 4: Step three is deliver: Published May 20
- Part 5: Step four is double-back: Due June 3
“The era of evidence collection on education is (largely) over,” so write the influential authors of the recent book Building to Impact (Hamilton et al, 2022). “The era of systematic implementation of the existing evidence,” we are urged, must begin.
The authors, who include Professor John Hattie, go on with a rallying cry to trusts and schools to develop, improve and understand the complexity of implementation processes and procedures and put them to effective use in all of their programmes of school improvement.
In essence, what they state is that there really is no further need to grow the knowledge-base for effective education: if we wanted to consume all of the available evidence, we would need to work through 68 books and journal articles per-day in order to do it in a single lifetime.
Instead, they say, as leaders, we must grow in wisdom about how we apply this evidence effectively to our own contexts.
This is a body of knowledge in itself and many jump to consider the work on implementation, but this misses an important step in the process.
Our schools are already full of excellent work; many are bursting at the seams with great initiatives and curriculum options. Before any implementation can occur, leaders must systematically make room for impact within the busy life of the school.
In other words, they must de-implement – to borrow the title of a follow-up 2024 book from Prof Hattie, alongside Dr Arran Hamilton and Professor Dylan Wiliam (Hamilton et al, 2024).
As such, in this five-part series I would like to dive into a four-step model proposed by Prof Hattie and his colleagues in that book – Making Room for Impact: A de-implementation guide for educators – and consider what this might look like in practice.
However, in this opening article I would like to consider how we carefully “remove, reduce, re-use or re-engineer” – to quote the book – what we are already doing to make the needed space for the impact we want to have in schools.
Why de-implement before we implement?
The suggestion during a senior leadership meeting of stopping initiatives, reducing the time spent on them, or re-engineering them entirely, is often one that is briefly considered and quickly dismissed.
A reasonable instinct among those engaging in school improvement and development is that to subtract, pause, or reverse projects should never happen – we should always persevere and add to the offer we provide in our schools.
Many of the assumptions are well-meaning. Educating the whole child requires a rich, comprehensive curriculum; schools should always be looking to improve what they do, therefore adding to what is already being done is seen as inherently good.
An important point about de-implementation is that the aim is not simply to do less, but to make space for more impact on student achievement. With this in mind, a closer look at some of the research for stopping, pausing or reducing what you are doing reveals three arguments for carefully considering de-implementation in a changing educational landscape.
1, Teacher workload, stress and wellbeing
In the UK, teachers are working long hours during term time. Many report 50 hours per week, with 68% of surveyed primary teachers saying that they “disagreed/strongly disagreed” that they had an acceptable workload (Walker et al, 2019). This has been a consistent picture for more than 25 years (Walker et al, 2020).
In addition, a relatively high proportion of teachers are exiting the profession within the first five years of their career (DfE, 2021). This creates great strain on retraining, developing staff and supporting them to improve at pace on a yearly basis, while experienced colleagues may be leaving for well-paid roles in other careers.
This is not an article about teacher retention, but given our discussion on de-implementation, one of the reasons for teacher attrition most certainly is the culture of change that education sits within. This can be accentuated within schools who feel the pressure to adopt and engage in a plethora of new programmes and initiatives and activities each year to meet the demands of government guidance or the changing needs of the community.
In addition to the standard practices of teachers, this additional stress of having to adopt new practices can create an additional, possibly unneeded, burden. Without explicitly de-implementing elements in the midst of this change, teachers can feel exhausted and confused about the approaches they ought to be taking, especially if they are constantly changing.
2, Less might sometimes be more
Another argument for de-implementing is that more, harder, fuller work does not always link directly to improved student outcomes or better teaching.
There are many examples that could illustrate this point within education, but perhaps a key one is the shift in our understanding of marking and feedback over the past 10 years. Ten years ago, it was encouraged among marking policies to give students “two stars and a wish” on each piece of work, creating vast amounts of marking for teachers to do. Teachers often felt that because they were working hard, this would naturally improve outcomes for their students, where in actual fact there was minimal evidence for it being effective.
Then there was double or even triple marking, where teachers would ask questions of their students, which they would respond to, and then they would respond again. Teachers doing this 30 times every day across a range of subjects created huge amounts of work for minimal learning gains. Although they felt like they were making a difference, the impact on teacher workload outweighed any effectiveness of the strategy.
In more recent years, other strategies which have had higher impact and take less time have emerged, such as whole class feedback, live marking (sometimes known as feedback laps), and the use of technology.
Importantly, these strategies are not seeing the reduction of teacher workload as their primary concern, but the efficiency of the way they are working so that students are still getting high-quality input on their learning.
3, Value for money
Putting more money into education does not improve student outcomes. Education does cost money, and funding does matter, but only to a point. The key is to make sure that money is spent wisely on the things that have the highest impact on student learning and they are used effectively to leverage improved student achievement.
Although difficult, it is important to consider carefully whether certain things that are being used within the school budget are having the desired impact at the desired level. There is always the danger that we spend money on lots of things that have mediocre impact in schools, and therefore don’t leverage the high-impact things that may be available to us because we cannot afford them.
An interesting example is iPads. These are expensive but if used for high-impact, and matched with good quality training for staff, they can be an essential learning tool, utilised in lots of places throughout the curriculum. The key is making sure that they are having a high impact and are used well. This needs to continue to be checked carefully and monitored.
Another example may be software for resources in the curriculum. There are a range of excellent tools that can be used with interactive whiteboards, but it is worth considering whether cheaper options are available that could do similar things and still have high impact. Again, combined with good training, many cheap software options can still have a good quality impact for student outcomes.
Why do we find it so hard to de-implement?
Even though there are good reasons for de-implementing, we still find it hard to do…
We are cognitively primed for addition: Recent studies into cognitive bias suggest that when we are presented with problems, we are far more likely to explore options that involve adding new initiatives, programmes, resources and time, and less likely to consider taking things out or subtracting from what we are doing to achieve more (Adams et al, 2021). Research into “loss aversion” supports these claims – this is the idea that the fear of losses, abandoning existing and engrained practices in favour of new ones, is a common tendency for many within a variety of professions (Perlow, 1999).
It can increase workload in the short term: Reducing workload long-term may actually increase workload in the short term (Burkeman, 2021). For example, when implementing new schemes of work in line with curriculum changes, new content can be tricky to grasp if you are teaching it for the first time. This might mean more lesson planning and preparation for several weeks, or even a full academic year, to get to grips with it. But, in the long-term, if the quality of the planning is better and has much higher impact on student outcomes, it will reduce workload because it does not need to be constantly redeveloped and changed. There are many other examples that can be given, but quite often stripping back or changing what needs to be done can require meeting time, action planning and communication and collaboration, on top of what is already being done. However, if it is the right de-implementation strategy, then this is always going to be a better option in the long run.
De-implementation in schools requires deep wisdom and knowledge of the school context if we are going to do it right: De-implementation is not about simply doing less. De-implementation is about wisely finding the right things to “remove, reduce, re-engineer or replace” so that higher impact on student achievement can be made within the confines of the school schedule.
This takes energy, effort, hard thinking and lots of time. A deep knowledge of the school context, the staff team, and the strengths and weaknesses of the organisation really matters. As noted, it may actually increase workload in the short term as the review process might often need to take place on top of the normal school schedule.
Successful de-implementation: 4Ds
Drawing upon a large body of evidence, Prof Hattie and his colleagues have developed a four-step model for thinking about de-implementation (Hamilton et al, 2024). Here I would like to draw on this work to consider what these four steps might look like in schools. The descriptions below are drawn from the book but also my own experience.
1, Discover
A reason for exploring de-implementation with a team should be established. Focus areas for de-implementation should then be identified: curriculum, teaching, timetabling, SEND. Once certain practices are selected an exploration of what sustains them should be conducted, paying close attention to why they were set up in the first place.
This first step ensures that anything that is de-implemented is carefully considered and not done without proper consultation from a range of stakeholders. It is likely to increase workload in the short term and if this is the case, it ought to be time well spent.
2, Decide
Once the programme, activity or practice is selected, it is then important to consider whether it needs to be “removed, reduced, replaced or re-engineered”.
- If it is removed, then what will replace it and why will it be more effective?
- If it is reduced, it is worth considering how the quality of the impact will be sustained.
- If it is replaced, the thing it is replaced with needs to be of high-quality and increase the impact on student achievement.
- If it is re-engineered, thinking through how it will be done and how this will be communicated is important.
3, De-implement
Once decisions have been made, it is time to put them into practice. Planning must come to life at this stage and consideration ought to be taken for a timeline of work, communication, training, planning, monitoring and points when data will be collected to measure the impact and the success. These should be mapped for the full cycle of de-implementation considering the wider life of the school and the flow of workload of staff at key points in the year.
4, Re-decide
Key checkpoints should be put in place to consider where the de-implementation plan will move next. It may be that the de-implementation can be scaled up to other things; the pace of the change may need to be thought-through so that it is fully sustained, and the impact can be seen across the whole school and not just in certain areas.
Final thoughts
This article has been a whistlestop tour of de-implementation, considering why it is worthwhile, why we find it hard to consider, and what simple steps we can take to consider it.
When we are adding new programmes, strategies, initiatives or approaches to the work we are doing in our schools, we need to think carefully about what it is replacing and where it will fit. The implementation process never sits within isolation to other aspects of school life.
Therefore, before any discussion of implementation is had, de-implementation must be carefully considered to make more room for impact.
In the next four articles in this series I will consider the 4Ds (Hamilton et al, 2024) and how these might work in practice in the primary school.
- Robbie Burns is an experienced school leader and currently an acting head of school. You can find more of his writing on his blog https://howthenshouldweteach.wordpress.com. All views are his own. Read his previous articles for Headteacher Update via www.headteacher-update.com/authors/robbie-burns
Further information & resources
- Adams et al: People systematically overlook subtractive changes, Nature 592, 2021.
- Burkeman: Four Thousand Weeks: Time management for mortals, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2021.
- DfE: School Workforce Census: Reporting Year 2021: School Workforce in England, 2021.
- Hamilton, Reeves, Clinton & Hattie: Building to Impact: The 5D Implementation Playbook for Educators, Corwin Press, 2022.
- Hamilton, Hattie & Wiliam: Making Room for Impact: A de-implementation guide for educators, Corwin Press, 2024.
- Perlow: The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time, Administrative Science Quarterly (44), 1999.
- Walker, Worth & Van den Brande: Teacher workload survey, Department for Education, 2019.
- Walker, Sharp & Sims: Job satisfaction and workload of teachers and senior leaders: Schools’ responses to Covid-19, National Foundation for Educational Research, 2020.