Many efforts to change teaching practice start in the wrong place. School leaders and instructional coaches often focus on shifting teachers’ beliefs and attitudes, assuming practice will follow. Tom Guskey’s work challenges that assumption, showing that belief change more often results from successful changes in classroom practice—especially when those changes lead to improved student learning. Guskey illustrates this shift in thinking in a simple diagram from, “Flip the Script on Change,” where changes in practice lead to changes in student learning, which then reshape teachers’ beliefs and attitudes.
Guskey revisited this dilemma of bringing about change in teachers’ instructional practices in a recent Edweek post, “School Leaders Struggle With Teacher Buy-in. What to Do About That.”
Here are his four suggestions along with my thoughts:
#1 “Leaders must adopt realistic expectations for buy-in. At the outset, the most reasonable form of buy-in to expect is a shift from cynicism to skepticism.”
I approach change as an experiment. The teacher is experimenting with a new teacher behavior. Does the change generate short-term shifts in student learning behaviors? Over time, does it improve student learning success—and for how many students? In an earlier blog, Fidelty—Trust the Program, I touched upon the problems that arise from presenting teachers with a required change and required fidelity. Our word choices when coaching have impact and I think fidelity is one of those words that can be tricky. I believe teachers can take different meanings from the statement, “The program must be followed with fidelity.”
Jim Knight reinforces that concern:
“Stressing fidelity diminishes teachers. Telling teachers exactly how they are supposed to teach leaves little room for them to share their own ideas, knowledge, and expertise. At worst, too much focus on fidelity can lead teachers to feel like they’re working on an assembly line putting widgets together rather than engaging in the complex, important art of inspiring and educating tomorrow’s leaders. Also, a fidelity-focused approach is grounded in the assumption that you can get people to learn just by telling them how to do something. However, everything we know about learning and motivation shows us that we can’t force people to learn. Most adults—I am one of them—are skilled at nodding in agreement while passively choosing not to do something.” (Knight)
When language emphasizes compliance over curiosity, partnership gives way to compliance. Consider that when implementing a new program, we are asking teachers to be partners. We are requesting that the change be implemented, questioned, observed and reported on along the way, thus inviting the teacher to be a member of the system team focused on learning the best strategy to maximize students’ success. The evidence and data from the teachers’ observations, student engagement and learning assessments build systemic understanding and lead to teachers’ belief and attitude that ingrains a change.
#2 “Leaders must provide practical, hands-on support.”
Coaching is a critical element here whether from instructional coaches, curriculum and teacher leaders, or peers. Implementing changes in practice is likely to place teachers in the learning dip. Observational feedback at first reinforces for teachers that they have implemented the change and then provides feedback on how the teacher change is impacting student learning behaviors. (Example: First—my feedback to students during class is more probing and less cluing. Then—students begin persevering longer and thinking more deeply.)
#3 “Leaders must create structured opportunities for collaboration.”
#4 “Leaders must help teachers gather and share regular feedback on results.”
Guskey’s third and fourth suggestions come together most powerfully through PLCs.
Engaging PLCs in the implementation and assessment of a changed curriculum or instructional process can be key to supporting teachers’ implementation and reflection that may lead to a new teacher belief or attitude. Reflection is critical to change in belief. PLCs can normalize struggle and imperfection while creating psychological safety where questions, concerns, and “failed” attempts are treated as learning data. This safety is essential for sustained implementation.
A PLC can influence individual teacher reflection on a new practice by shaping what teachers notice, how they interpret their experience, and what they do next. Rather than reflection being a private, often impression-based activity, the PLC turns it into a disciplined, evidence-informed, and forward-looking process.
When teachers are invited to experiment, observe impact, and reflect with colleagues, change feels less imposed and more owned. Over time, those shared learning experiences do what mandates often don’t. Reflection on those new experiences reshapes beliefs because teachers see, feel, and understand the difference the practice makes for their students.
