Using Continuous Improvement and Design Methods for System Leadership: Commonalities, Contingencies, and Paradoxes

• In Event: At the Nexus of Continuous Improvement and School District Research: Possibilities, Dilemmas, and Provocations

Abstract

This paper aims to address the gap in the research outlined in the introduction to this symposium by developing a perspective that integrates theories of system-level educational leadership (e.g., Leithwood, 2013; Fullan, 2007; 2012; Supovitz 2006; Welton & Diem, 2021) and research on continuous improvement and design-based methods (e.g., Bryk et al., 2015; Hinnant-Crawford, 2020; Penuel, 2019).

We draw on our reading of the literature and a four-year comparative case study of how school districts implemented four different continuous improvement and design (CID) methods. Our study involved a two-pronged research design, combining a comparative case study (Yin, 2009) with an additional set of interviews with experienced leaders of CID methods. We selected different CID methods that varied in their theories of change. Two methods drew on design principles: design-based implementation research (Penuel et al., 2011) and design thinking (Brown, 2009). The other two—the Data Wise Improvement Process (Boudett et al., 2015) and Networked Improvement Communities (Bryk et al., 2015)—focus on continuous improvement. We selected four school systems (one using each method) for in-depth investigation.

In each system, we collected multiple different forms of data between 2017 and 2021. These data included semi-structured interviews with district leaders, school leaders, and teachers; observations of trainings and meetings focused on using CID methods; observations of instruction; and classroom, school, and system-level artifacts. In total, we conducted over 350 interviews, 145 observations of meetings and trainings, and 165 observations of instruction. Our analytic process moved between deductive and inductive approaches (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Overall, we found that successfully utilizing CID methods is a much more human, dynamic, and interactive process than “how to” books on these methods would suggest. It involved commonalities, contingencies, and paradoxes.

Commonalities. In all of our successful cases, leaders needed to strategically bridge and buffer the larger environment, and create a relational container that supported trust, learning, and psychological safety. These cases also involved a virtuous cycle of mindsets (ways of thinking that were consistent with disciplined yet reflective practice), routines (structured patterns of adult interaction), and practices (new ways of teaching students), in which experiencing success provided educators motivation for further work.

Contingencies. We found that arenas that are what James Scott (1998) calls legible—where there are measures that correspond closely to the underlying phenomenon, they engage in frequently repeated tasks or routines that can be adjusted in response to these measures, and they can measure performance in an ongoing way that allows for comparisons over time—were more amenable to continuous improvement methods.

Paradoxes. We found that successful leaders simultaneously held onto a series of paired and seemingly opposed dispositions: an emphasis on analytic precision (often using quantitative data) while also focusing heavily on the human side of change; using the processes offered by the methods but “holding them lightly” and often significantly adapting them as needed; moving at the speed of trust but avoiding “analysis paralysis.” Reading the context and knowing which part of these pairs to push when required judgment and was critical to success.

Authors

• Jal David Mehta, Harvard University

• Maxwell Yurkofsky, Radford University