Leadership magazine Sept/Oct 2014 V 44 No 1 | Page 26

district systems is to clearly define the wildly important goals
support needed to transition instructional practices. Teachthat can successfully lead long-term efforts for closing student
ers participated in centralized training on lesson design and
achievement gaps.
engaged in instructional planning with site teams.
Desert Sands USD made a bold statement in the 2013-14
Once instructional priorities and visible evidence of
school year with district-wide adoption of two instructional
learning has been clarified, district and school systems can
priorities: close reading and standards of mathematical pracbe adapted to meet the demands of these new expectations.
tice. These overarching priorities laid the foundation for creSystems improvement efforts always require a change in acating a common district vision and language that defined littion and corresponding behaviors to attain agreed-upon
eracy and critical thinking skills for all students. This intense
outcomes. By focusing on two overarching outcomes, Desfocus on what mattered most required systems improvement
ert Sands USD engaged in a systems change to implement a
that impacted the roles of district administrators and support
coherent instructional program driven by two district-wide
staff, principals, instructional coaches and teachers in refininstructional priorities.
ing one of the foundational systems for LCAPs: a coherent inLeading implementation
structional program.
School districts by nature are consumed by the whirlwind
Although district-wide efforts for capacity-building cenof daily work. To effectively engage in systems change, district
tered on two instructional priorities, the evidence of student
and school leaders have to maintain
learning needed to be more precise to
an intense focus on implementing
lead systems change. The next step
School districts by nature are
what matters most. Seminal research
for Desert Sands was to expand the
by Donald Kirkpatrick pointed to
common terms of close reading and consumed by the whirlwind of
the root cause of fragmented implestandards of mathematical practice to
daily work. To effectively engage mentation – a lack of clearly defined
clarify the visible evidence that would
implementation drivers (Kirkpatrick,
guide the actions of leaders at all levin systems change, district and
2014).
els, and teachers within all schools.
What drives implementation are
Each priority was further delineated school leaders have to maintain
four levels of formative feedback, each
into the key components of a coherent
an intense focus on implementing having a more significant impact on
instructional program.
systems change than the former. Level
what matters most.
Developing definitions
one measures the degree to which
For close reading it was defined as
staff react favorably to learning new
student comprehension of grade-appropriate texts, cognipractices. Level two measures the degree to which staff learn
tively rigorous levels of text-dependent questions, structured
how to use new practices. Level three measures the degree to
collaborative conversations, and evidence-based writing.
which staff apply new practices. And level four measures the
Standards of mathematical practice were further defined as
degree to which reinforcement of new practices attain agreedteaching for conceptual understanding, providing opportuupon outcomes.
nities for students to communicate mathematically in written
So two questions can be used to continually assess the imand verbal form, and providing students with opportunities
plementation of new practices and subsequent impact on imto apply math skills in real-life situations.
proving school district systems:
Leading systems change required that district professional
1. Are all staff applying the new practices?
development lay a foundation for developing capacity of
2. Are the new practices attaining desired results?
teachers and leaders to implement the instructional priorities.
Le