Raising the Standard

| One leadership team reimagined their role from managing teachers to teaching the teachers—transforming a stagnant culture into a living system of instructional learning.

When a new administrative team assumed leadership of a suburban Catholic high school with 440 students and 35 teachers, they faced more than just outdated instructional practices and low expectations—they inherited a team of educators who had grown comfortable with mediocrity. The staff struggled with stagnant morale, minimal collaboration, and instructional standards that failed to align with the school’s mission. There was little evidence that a shared educational vision guided the daily work in classrooms.

At the heart of this dysfunction was the Academic Council, composed of the school’s department chairs. These meetings had become little more than logistical updates and complaints about lockers not being properly closed or shirts being untucked. Discussions never addressed instruction and never led to improved student outcomes. Informal “meetings after the meeting” continued the cycle of complaint. The negativity and lack of purpose drove away members of the administrative team. This was not a true leadership team—it was an unhealthy working group that, over the years, had been permitted to become a space of frustration and hurt.

In the summer between year two and year three, the new administration made a decisive shift. The Academic Council was disbanded, and in its place, the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT) was created. This group collectively defined its purpose and established behavioral norms. The administration brought classroom observation data to ILT meetings for review, and together the team identified areas of focus to support teachers. ILT meetings became a platform for adult learning, where leaders were first learners. The administrative team used the space to provide clear Tier 1 instructional strategies that ILT members could bring back to their departments.

To support this shift, the master schedule was redesigned to create shared department planning times. Departments, led by ILT members, began meeting weekly in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to collaborate, analyze student work, and improve instruction. The administration did not impose changes abruptly—they soft-launched their vision for instruction, embedding it in multiple touchpoints so nothing came as a surprise.

A key turning point was the emphasis on collective teacher efficacy at the center of professional development. Every teacher, in every classroom, must believe that their instruction matters—and the force multiplier is when a community of teachers believes it together.

Gradually, expectations for Tier 1 instruction became more consistent and clearly understood: learning goals were posted and referenced, checks for understanding were embedded throughout lessons, teachers adjusted instruction based on data, and students were engaged in cognitively demanding tasks. The ILT began to articulate a common definition of excellent instruction—and more importantly, a belief that it was achievable across classrooms.

The cultural and instructional shift began to show up in classrooms. A team of teachers thoughtfully collaborating led to multiple success stories for students. For example, where one teacher once simply asked students to close-read a passage and answer questions, that same teacher was later observed explaining success criteria and modeling annotation strategies using a document camera. Students now knew what they were learning, had an exemplar, reflected on their progress, and owned their learning process.

Though grounded in research and best practices, instructional transformation is inherently slow and requires patience, consistency, and care. Teachers are learners too. They need clarity, scaffolding, and high expectations. The leader’s job is not to micromanage but to guide teachers toward a shared vision of instructional excellence—modeling the same commitment to learning they hope to see in every classroom.