I don’t understand. I sent teachers to training, and they came back excited. However, here we are four months later, and things pretty much look the same as they did before anyone went to training.

I wonder how many leaders who just read these words have pondered this same thought in their past. If the truth were known, I suspect all of us. For over three decades I have shared this thought with educational leaders, and I can confidently say that universally leaders have witnessed this happening. Why is this the case? How can a group of educators see relevancy and value in a training but not successfully transfer what they learned to the classroom? The answer to this has nothing to do with whether or not the educators in question are ethical people or quality educators; the answer lies in how well teachers are supported.

It is not training that is going to narrow achievement gaps in this country. It is the successful implementation of training that is going to narrow the gaps. At Kagan we have embraced the professional development equation noted below.

Fidelity + Frequency = Fluency

When it comes to full implementation of cooperative learning, this formula epitomizes what we are striving to attain. When teachers reach fluency, student achievement is positively impacted. However, teachers will never become fluent in their use of Kagan structures—or any other initiative for that matter—unless they implement the structures well (i.e., with fidelity) and often (i.e., with frequency). The key to making this happen rests in the quality and amount of support teachers receive during implementation.

A. Research on Staff Development

The research on professional development, especially that conducted by Bruce Joyce over decades of time, is conclusive. Apart from systemic, intentional support, teachers will not successfully transfer their learning to the classroom. In the original 1988 research, Joyce and Showers made a startling discovery.

In studies that have asked the transfer question (e.g., did participants use new skills in the classroom, did they use them appropriately, did they integrate new skills with existing repertoire, was there long-term retention of the products of training)…the gradual addition of training elements does not appear to impact transfer noticeably (ES of .00 for information or theory; theory plus demonstration; theory, demonstration, and practice)…However, a large and dramatic increase in transfer of training—ES of 1.68— occurs when in-class coaching is added to an initial training experience (pages 72–73).¹

Follow-up studies conducted by Joyce support these findings. Joyce and Calhoun (2016) discovered that only 5-10% of teachers made long term use of strategies when the components of professional development only contained rationale plus demonstrations and preparation time. However, when in-class coaching was added to the staff development program, “… the duration and frequency of practice rose dramatically—90% of participants used the additions to their repertoire until they became a normal part of practice” (page 44).²

Coaching is clearly necessary in order for teachers to successfully transfer what they learn in a workshop to the classroom. However, in order for this to occur, teachers cannot be supported infrequently. We often say in education—as it relates to children—that learning is a function of time and support. Given enough time and enough support, the vast majority of children can master what it is we want them to learn. Ask any teacher if they agree with this statement, and he/she will concur. However, that is not only true of children. It is true of learning—whether the learner is 5, 15, or 55 years of age.

Teachers—like children—are learners who need time and support in order to master any initiative. Providing consistent, regular support over a lengthy period of time can only happen when schools are able to support themselves. Reliance upon outside support is not sustainable; building internal capacity is critical to the creation of effective support systems for teachers. The individual upon whom this responsibility rests is the building principal.

B. Critical Role of Leadership

Experts have known for decades that principals are critical players in school improvement. The preponderance of evidence suggests that apart from building level leadership, initiatives will fail.

• There may be schools out there that have strong instructional leaders, but are not yet effective; however, we have never yet found an effective school that did not have a strong instructional leader as the principal (Edmonds, page 5).³
• Without a competent caring individual in the principal’s position, the task of school reform is very difficult. Reform can be initiated from outside the school or stimulated from within. But in the end, it is the principal who implements and sustains the changes through the inevitable roller coaster of euphoria and setbacks (Gerstner, et. al., page 133).⁴
• The importance of effective leadership in any change process is well established. It is difficult to imagine implementing and sustaining a school change process through all of the inevitable setbacks and frustrations without strong leadership from a competent principal (DuFour, page 183).⁵
• The general agreement in educational research has been that the best hope for school improvement is to be found in the principal’s office (DuFour, page 182).⁶
• Principals really matter…The report affirms that effective principals have a pronounced, positive effect on the schools they lead (Wallace Foundation).⁷

Unfortunately, for far too long principals have relied upon a single feedback system to support teacher implementation—the appraisal process. Evaluative feedback is not effective in changing teacher behavior. “Feedback from others, to be of maximum utility for skill development… should be nonevaluative” (Joyce, page 69).⁸ Michael Fullan, regarded as the premier expert on educational change, has reached the same conclusion. He references this multiple times in his book, Motion Leaders: The Skinny on Becoming Change Savvy.

• Capacity building trumps judgmentalism (Fullan, page 45).⁹
• …change is about moving people. Moving them is about motivating them to take new action. Savvy change leaders…are empathetic enough that the person affected does not feel personally judged (Fullan, pages 46–47)¹⁰
• We have proven that nonpunitive accountability can work (Fullan, page 61)¹¹

Appraisal systems are not growth systems; they are compliance mechanisms. Nearly every principal would affirm that evaluation produces dog and pony shows, not true implementation. Principals need to support—not judge—the efforts of their teachers. In order for this to occur, building administrators need to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to support implementation. “Principals must do more than assist with the logistics of peer coaching systems if coaching is to become institutionalized” (Joyce, page 91).¹² Principals who are functioning as effective instructional leaders must know instruction. “They must be able to distinguish high- from low-quality pedagogical practices and possess skills to provide effective, structured feedback to teachers” (Hobbs).¹³

However, even with the knowledge and skills necessary to support teachers, principals’ efforts are hampered when they function in isolation. “Establishing a coaching program requires strong leadership from school principals as well as support from central administrative staff” (Joyce & Showers, page 90).¹⁴ It is not just building leadership that needs to be part of supporting implementation. District level leaders are crucial as well. “Districts matter. The vision and actions of system leaders and school board members frequently determine whether principals can be effective in leading school improvement” (SREB).¹⁵

School reform over the past 50 years has been difficult and messy because we are attempting to transform culture. “Those who seek to initiate substantive change must recognize that an existing system with a well-entrenched structure and culture is already in place. In general, those working within that system will always resist, always fight to preserve the system” (DuFour, page 50).¹⁶ We can expect resistance when culture is challenged. Nevertheless, changing the prevailing culture of a school is “…the most important— and the most difficult—job of the schoolbased reformer…” (Barth, page 7).¹⁷

As such, no principal can hope to successfully accomplish this task on his own. District leaders must be a part of the process. Linda Lambert reached this conclusion: “I’m now persuaded that we can’t save education one school at a time. Excellent schools in poor districts implode over time, whereas poor schools in excellent districts get better” (page 80).¹⁸ To change the culture of a school requires the support of central leadership. It is for this reason that district implementation plans are vital.

C. Systemic Support

Given all this, how does Kagan come alongside leaders at both the building and central levels to support their efforts? How does Kagan help administrators ensure teachers implement Kagan structures with fidelity and frequency? We do so by training leaders to systematically support implementation. It is the cumulative effect of multiple internal support systems that positively impacts teacher behavior.

The time that administrators need to impact is not the time while they are visiting classrooms. The time that leaders need to impact is the time when they are not in classrooms—that time when teachers are alone with students for the vast majority of the school year. If the only time teachers structure interaction is when administrators are present in the classroom, there will be no significant impact on student learning. This is exactly what has transpired through appraisal—compliant behavior only when the principal is present in the classroom. However, it is possible to “…create a system where positive change is virtually inevitable” (Fullan, page 62).¹⁹

The way to accomplish this is to institutionalize numerous internal support systems. Collectively, these systems work together to give teachers the time and support they need to reach mastery. Listed below is a brief overview of the systemic supports that Kagan teaches administrators in our leadership courses. By putting these supports into place over a lengthy period of time, culture is changed and successful implementation is ensured.

• Kagan Coaching
  There is, perhaps, no more important system for ensuring fidelity than coaching. Kagan’s unique, real-time approach to coaching safeguards against structured interaction breaking down into unstructured interaction. It is possible for administrators to wear the hat of evaluator and coach. Leaders just have to be certain these feedback systems do not bleed into each other.
• Cooperative Meetings
  Use of Kagan Structures in meetings sends a clear message to teachers that engagement is important. Leaders no longer are just giving lip service to the initiative; they are walking the walk. Additionally, using the structures supports teachers by putting them in a position to feel the power of structured interaction. Most teachers did not experience a cooperative learning classroom as children.
• SAM Clubs
  By focusing teachers’ attention on a single structure, both fidelity and frequency are impacted. SAM Clubs allow teachers to experience the structure again, revisit what was learned in training, understand how structures can break down, and brainstorm content ideas for the classroom.
• Lesson Planning
  Leaders are trained in two areas of lesson planning. The first is lesson development (i.e., the ability to analyze teacher resources and lesson plans for PIES). The second is lesson design (i.e., the ability to match structure choice to the appropriate academic function). Both of these better ensure teachers properly use structures as they were designed.

• PLC Meetings
  Most schools have collaborative time built into their school day. Putting peers in a position to support one another is important for any initiative. Also, having teachers complete documentation related to their team meetings enables leaders to gain insight into the dialogue that is taking place during these weekly work sessions.
• Peer Observations
  Seldom do teachers have the opportunity to watch their peers teach. Having teachers partner with same grade level (elementary) or same content area (secondary) gives them a chance to see structures being used in classrooms similar to their own. “Opportunities to observe and discuss effective teaching are an important part of developing expertise among classroom teachers” (Marzano, page 7).²⁰
• Shadowing
  In a shadowing experience, teachers walk with an internal Kagan coach. This gives them an opportunity to reflect on their own level of implementation because they get to see exemplars (i.e., teachers who have mastered the use of structures). Watching master instructors helps teachers recognize what they need to do to improve their own pedagogical skills.
• Walk-Throughs
  Integration of all that is learned in cooperative learning training (i.e., the Seven Key Concepts) into the district’s walk-through process better ensures teachers understand what is expected of them. It also provides opportunities for administrators to have reflective, differentiated conversations with teachers.

• PIES Analyses
  The PIES principles can be applied on a broader scale than just the structures. PIES can become a district’s definition of student engagement. By applying this broader lens, teachers gain a deeper understanding of student engagement and are less likely to revert to ineffective pedagogical practices (e.g., group work, call on one).
• Implementation Rubrics
  As noted earlier, learning is a function of time and support. Some teachers will embrace cooperative learning quickly; others will take more time. However, without implementation rubrics, teachers do not know what the expectation for full implementation is. Rubrics define the target. Rubrics can be used to create individual improvement goals. Trend areas can also be identified so that building goals can be set.
• Student Data Monitoring
  According to Doug Reeves, “…gains in achievement happen only at the greatest levels of implementation” (page 32).²¹ How student achievement data is handled is crucial to sustaining an initiative. Handled incorrectly and implementation will waiver; handled correctly and implementation will escalate.

• New Teacher Induction
  Integrating cooperative learning training into a new teacher induction program results in two significant advantages. First, this training meets new teachers’ greatest need (i.e., classroom management). Second, integration into induction ensures maintenance of effort as new staff come to the organization each year.

• Board Policy Development
  Educating board members on cooperative learning better ensures the initiative is not derailed. Districts are notorious for shifting direction every couple of years. Critical to the sustainability of any school improvement plan is the creation of board policies which focus on student achievement and district initiatives.
• District Mission
  Mission statements explain an organization’s reason for existence. However, DuFour never promoted creating a mission statement; he advocated creating a sense of mission. In order to create a sense of purpose, the language embedded in a district’s mission statement is critical. Such language (e.g., engagement, cooperation, social skills, interaction) communicates a strong message to staff members regarding what is expected.

• District Vision
  Vision statements describe how an organization will appear in a future successful state. As is the case with mission, DuFour never promoted creating a vision statement; he advocated creating a sense of vision. Unfortunately, most vision statements are little more than a motto and are not motivating to employees. Like mission statements, the language of a district’s vision statement communicates to staff members what is valued in the organization.
• Collective Commitments
  Sometimes called value statements, collective commitments are not belief statements. Rather, they are statements that define how people in an organization will behave in order to make the shared vision become a reality. By involving staff in the creation of collective commitments, accountability for implementation is greatly enhanced.
• Force Field Analyses
  At any given moment in the midst of a change, two opposing sets of forces are at work: those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (resisting forces). Being able to identify these forces and remove barriers to implementation better ensures success.

• Parent Education
  Parents can play a vital role in ensuring that an initiative is successful. Educating parents on school improvement efforts helps them understand and support what the organization is trying to accomplish. Many parents often become future board members which also boosts sustainability.
• Classified Staff Training
  Educating classified staff members is also critical to an initiative’s success. For one, many of them provide direct services to students (e.g., paraprofessionals, teacher assistants). For another, these staff members are frequently directly connected to the community since many were raised in the area and attended the district’s schools.

No single support system is effective in ensuring teachers implement with fidelity and frequency. It is the cumulative effect of multiple internal support systems that shapes teacher behavior. When administrators put frequent, systematic supports in place, tremendous pressure is placed on teachers to comply and implement. However, this pressure is not married to judgment. Pressure created by evaluation results in short term compliance. When pressure is married to support, long term implementation is ensured.

D. Conclusion

Since the Coleman Report came out in 1966, educators have been trying to narrow achievement gaps in this country. We have changed curriculum standards on a broad scale, and that needed to happen. We have created better assessments at the local and state levels, and that needed to happen. However, if all we do is change curriculum standards and build better assessments, we will never narrow achievement gaps. The answer to equity lies in instruction.

However, dictating to teachers how they will teach is an extremely difficult undertaking. Changing standards and assessments pales in comparison to the complexity of changing instructional practices. Douglas Reeves was dead-on when he noted, “…there are simply always going to be elements of dissatisfaction… The journey is neither easy nor popular…” (page 108).²² Other educational experts agree—change is hard.

• Conflict is essential to any successful change effort (Fullan, page 27).²³
• …change is a complex and formidable task that is certain to be accompanied by pain and conflict…The change process is necessarily filled with uncertainty, anxiety, and problems—conditions that are certain to lead to conflict. In fact, the absence of problems and conflict, particular in the early stages of change, suggests that the initiatives are superficial rather than substantive (DuFour, page 50).²⁴
• Personal change is much more complicated than most people realize. Changing the way we teach requires us to change habits of behavior, and changing habits is not easy… Desire and willpower usually aren’t enough to make real change occur. Due to our habitual nature, we are naturally inclined to protect the status quo (Knight, page 5).²⁵
• Both research and practice offer one inescapable, insightful conclusion to those considering an improvement initiative: change is difficult…One of the most damaging myths that aspiring school administrators often learn is that the change process, if managed well, will proceed smoothly. That myth amounts to little more than a cruel hoax…(DuFour, page 49).²⁶

School improvement is not so simple as sending a group of teachers to a workshop and hoping they will implement. Systematic support initiated, directed, and delivered by district leaders at both the building and central levels is imperative to significantly impact student achievement and narrow learning gaps. Without such systems it is possible that a limited number of individual teachers may change their pedagogical practices. However, in order to ensure widespread change that is sustainable and rooted in the culture of an organization (i.e., all teachers structuring student interaction on a daily basis), a wide variety of internal support systems must become institutionalized in the organization.

In the words of Anita Pankake, former Director of the Doctoral Program of Educational Leadership at the University of Texas Pan American, “gentle pressure relentlessly applied” changes teacher behavior. Training administrators to become instructional leaders is complex and time consuming, but apart from their concerted efforts, implementation with fidelity and frequency will not occur, and teachers will not reach fluency.

Kagan Partnership Team • 800.451.8495 • partnerships@KaganOnline.com