100-Day Leaders. Robert Eaker

Trust

      In their landmark leadership study, James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner (2011) identify credibility as the most important attribute for leadership success. Staff will forgive leaders for their mistakes in data analysis, communication, charisma, and myriad other leadership requirements as long as staff trust them. But if leaders lose credibility, it doesn’t matter how competent they are in other fields. Data analysis and charisma mean nothing without credibility. Credible leaders do what they say they will do. Therefore, within the first one hundred days of taking a leadership role, we recommend a rhythm of “promises made, promises kept” for every meeting: “Last week, I promised that I would do this, and here is how I have kept that promise.” Credible leaders should make this phrase the hallmark of every single encounter with their staff. This commitment to promises made, promises kept is an obligation of not merely the leader, but the entire system. It creates reciprocal accountability in which the leader makes and keeps promises and the staff do the same. Here are some examples of promises made, promises kept.

      • “At our last meeting, we agreed to bring student work for collaborative scoring to our team meetings, and this week, we have that work and are ready to go.”

      • “At our last meeting, we agreed to bring a list of individual students who need intervention and specific strategies to help them succeed, and this week, we have that list right here.”

      In the ideal world we advocate, every board meeting, cabinet meeting, department meeting, grade-level meeting, and collaborative team meeting has the same rhythm of promises made, promises kept.

Focus

      We can all agree that the amount of incoming information educational leaders, teachers, students, and society at large have exposure to has expanded markedly since the early 1980s. Yet it’s safe to say that the amount of learning has not markedly increased. Where does all of this transmitted but unused information go? It is lost to fragmentation, the inevitable result of futile attempts to multitask and absorb information at an increasingly frantic pace. Fragmentation, not focus, is the norm in the 21st century. Our research suggests, however, that focus—the prioritization of no more than six initiatives for any school or system—is strongly related to gains in student learning (Reeves, 2011b). Unfortunately, focus is elusive. Fragmentation does not occur due to malice on anyone’s part; it stems from noble motives. Have lots of high-poverty students? Here’s a new program! Have lots of English learners? Here’s another new program! Have lots of special education students? Here’s another new initiative! But however noble the motivations, fragmentation is associated with significantly lower levels of student learning. Indeed, schools with high concentrations of students from low-income families, students learning English, and special education students are the least likely to have high levels of focus (Reeves, 2011b). In our studies of more than two thousand schools, those with six or fewer initiatives have the greatest gains in student achievement (Reeves, 2011b).

      We are aware that the danger of focus is FOMO—fear of missing out. If a neighboring district has a new initiative and you don’t, then you think that you might fall behind. This logic undermines deep implementation of initiatives. We have seen this many times in schools as they journey to become PLCs.

Leverage

      Archimedes (n.d.) said, “Give me a place to stand on and with a lever I will move the whole world.” He was right, as any high school physics student can tell you. It would require a very, very long lever to move the mass of the earth (though probably not any longer than the lever required to move schools and classrooms). Educational leaders face a bewildering array of strategies that claim to work—that is, practices that influence student achievement. But this “What works?” approach to making choices is ultimately futile because, as John Hattie (2009) has joked, anything with a pulse works. The more insightful question to ask is, “What works best; what has the most leverage?” Leaders need to make the distinction between the much-vaunted standard of statistical significance and the more important standard of practical significance, or what in medicine is called clinical significance. Although marketing literature overflows with claims of statistical significance, usually followed by multiple exclamation points, statistical significance is actually a very low bar. A difference in student achievement of only a few percentage points may be statistically significant—that is, the difference between the control group and the experimental group is unlikely due to random variation. In general, the larger the sample size, the easier it is to establish statistical significance, even if that difference is very small.

      The more relevant question for educational leaders and teachers to ask is: “Does this proposal have practical significance—does it have so great an impact that we should stop doing other things in order to start doing this new initiative?” Most educational systems adopt initiatives one on top of another—the additive mode. But the principle of leverage suggests that you can’t move the earth while you are also attempting to move every other planet. In order to move the educational planet, leaders must stop attempting to move everything else in the solar system and focus on those elements of leverage that have the greatest potential for student gains.

      So, what are the leverage points in education? Our research suggests three central points of leverage. The first leverage point is the comprehensive use of PLCs as the central organizing principle for every school. In a review of 196 schools including more than a quarter million students (Reeves, 2016b), we find that when schools implement PLCs at Work® with depth and duration, significant student achievement gains in reading, mathematics, and science occur. The longer the implementation, the greater the gains. This clearly distinguishes the schools that go to a conference, gain superficial buy-in, declare victory, and move on from those that have long-term commitments to PLCs. The greatest gains happen in those schools that, year after year, maintain a laser-like focus on successful and deep PLC implementation. With each additional year after initial implementation, achievement gains grow, from three to five to seven to ten years (Reeves, 2010). This dogged persistence and focus prevents schools from yielding to the siren call of the latest fad and helps them remain committed to the collaborative processes that matter most for student results.

Feedback

      Feedback is the second leverage point. Of all the tools that teachers and leaders have available to influence student achievement, effective feedback has some of the greatest impact on student results. No matter how good the curriculum, data analysis, projects, or other elements of instruction that schools use, all of these have little value without effective feedback. Indeed, we have argued that many tests masquerading as formative assessments are better described as uninformative assessments (Reeves, 2011b). Even the most sophisticated assessments are useless unless teachers use the results to inform teaching and learning. The most elegant curriculum is valueless if educators merely deliver it and do not accompany it with effective feedback on the degree to which students are learning it.

      The acronym FAST summarizes the four elements of effective feedback: (1) fair, (2) accurate, (3) specific, and (4) timely (Reeves, 2016a). You can identify feedback you have received—from, say, a great coach or music director—that energized or encouraged you. Similarly, you can think of times when you received demoralizing and inconsequential feedback. Imagine that during your anniversary dinner, your spouse announces, “Honey, it’s time for your annual performance review. Here are some areas where you have exceeded my expectations, and here are some developmental opportunities.” If that example makes you cringe, then so should the vast majority of educational feedback systems, which provide vague, inconsistent information to students, teachers, and leaders, and deliver it long after anyone can do anything about it.

      The greatest potential for leaders to improve feedback and achieve great short-term, 100-day goals lies in two areas: (1) how leaders provide feedback to teachers and (2) how teachers provide feedback to students. Most teacher evaluation systems are the opposite of FAST; they are unfair (different administrators evaluate the same performance differently), they are inaccurate (observation rubrics are ambiguous and student learning scores are widely inaccurate), they are ambiguous (teachers do not routinely get specific feedback to improve performance), and they are