Research School Network: Evolution Not Stagnation James Dyke on why evolving our routines is as important as sustaining them

Following on from Blog 1, The What and Why of Routines in School Culture, and Blog 2, Establishing Effective Routines, this third and final blog exploring routines and their role in school culture brings us full circle: What should happen when a school has successfully embedded key routines and they are now part of the fabric of the school’s culture?

It is to be expected that the majority of the time, energy and hard work for leaders and teachers will be spent in establishing and finding consistency in the implementation of routines. As we discussed in ​‘establishing effective routines’, in order for routines to become embedded, unglamorous graft needs to be spent getting the routine off the ground before then avoiding the inevitable dip in performance that comes later.

For some schools, and some important cultural routines, this could, realistically, be weeks, terms, and academic years’ worth of work. A school that is gradually being ​‘turned around’ from a position of inadequate, for example, might need to slowly embed the highest leverage routines year on year, gradually turning the tide on entrenched poor behaviour or deep-rooted issues with teaching or curriculum. For these leaders, the primary focus will be on sustaining these efforts so that the hulking ship can be slowly turned around.

A start-up school that has the freedom, headspace and time to innovate may evolve quickly in its routines, quickly planting one oak tree after another (to use a previous analogy), with students quickly adapting to a highly structured environment that they have always experienced.

Whatever the context, one glaring, but often overlooked, issue for every school culture is maintaining effective routines over time and ensuring that they remain effective. A lack of attention and assumed authority of routines can lead to stagnation and, ultimately, a slide in culture or academic performance across a school.

As Angela Duckworth’s graphic below illustrates, as the frequency and success of a routine increases over time, the self-control and thought behind it depletes:

Here is where an almost-contradiction lies: We have previously argued that the automaticity of routines and the lowering of cognitive load provided by them is an intended outcome. However, with that comes a number of lurking pitfalls: Lethal mutations of routines that are taken for granted by established staff and therefore new staff ​‘inherit’ the routine without true understanding; a routine becoming ineffective due to a change in context or academy priority and therefore becoming stagnant, a waste of time, or damaging to the school culture.

The lurking dangers of a successful school

Consider the highly successful school that places well-established effective routines at the core of its culture. Over time this school evolves: Perhaps, after a set of impressive results, a principal migrates into an executive role, senior leaders are redeployed / promoted into positions in schools with a greater need, and middle leaders find themselves stepping into senior positions. We often bemoan staff turnover as a consequence of a chaotic school but it can manifest itself as a product of success in school that ​‘does things right’.

Suddenly, underneath this change in leadership, we have a host of new ECTs, teachers-of and heads of department that step into and take responsibility for the culture. Does a new ECT understand the purpose of the silent corridors or do they simply employ the routine because it is simply that, a routine? Does the new SLT member in charge of behaviour actually understand the underpinning rationale of ​‘hands up for silence’ enough to evaluate its significance in the wider school culture, or is this simply a left-over artefact of the previous regime that daren’t be altered?

Taking nothing for granted, being responsive to academy priorities, avoiding the de-skilling of teachers

There is some, albeit very soft, evidence that could point towards the dangers of teachers becoming de-skilled by the existence of structured routines in school culture. This brings us back to what we explored in the ​‘what and how’ of school routines: that without an explanation of purpose, routines prove much less effective and sometimes more problematic.

Not taking for granted that all staff within an organisation understand the purpose of a silent corridor is therefore crucial: instead, taking the time to re-explain and re-practise all routines, whether behavioural or instructional, is crucial in weeding out potential ambiguities or lethal mutations. You would imagine this would also act as a ​‘sense-testing’ for leaders as to whether the routine still has its place within the academy’s set of priorities; something that was crucial in managing behaviour / culture three years ago might be superfluous now and therefore prove a hindrance rather than a help.

Most of all, if a leader can’t genuinely explain the rationale behind a routine’s existence, it probably shouldn’t be there.

Ways of ​‘sense-testing’ established routines

• Use staff and student induction / reinduction to re-establish routines, explaining the rationale and any changes that have been made. Ensuring that established members of staff are reminded of the routine and hear once again its purpose (unapologetic overcommunication)
• Leaders to spend time reviewing and evaluating routines: SWOT works well (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats); this could also count for the establishing of new routines
• Respond to soft and hard data around the school – what are the priorities? Where do existing routines fit into this?
• Be candid in feeding back and taking feedback on the existing culture of the school – give middle leaders and other staff a forum to feed back on what works, what doesn’t and allow innovation to grow organically from everyone in the school

‘Evolutions’ – a case study

To illustrate some of the ideas I have muted in this blog, I’d like to draw, once again, from Dixons Trinity Chapeltown, and how we’ve evolved routines as the school has grown, year on year from Year 7 to Year 11.

Case Study 1: The death of the Mantra (ditching a routine)

Originally, as DTC found its way with its early cohorts of students, one routine built into the beginning of lessons by all teachers was the ​‘Mantra’. It was a recital of sorts where staff greeted students with: ​‘Good morning Year 7, are you ready to learn?’ And students repeated back: ​‘Good morning sir / miss, we are ready to learn.’

The rationale, originally, had been to reset students from whatever lesson they had come from, and, following a Do Now task, reset their focus to the main learning in the lesson. It also brought about, with Year 7 in particular, a joyful atmosphere and culture from which to teach and learn. It felt purposeful, positive and did indeed create focus.

Fast-forward 3 years: Year 7 are now in Year 10 and are fifteen years old. The Mantra became at times source of cynicism for some Year 10 students meaning it was now endured by staff and probably delivered unenthusiastically. Most of all, many newer staff, and certainly visitors, struggled to articulate or understand its exact purpose.

There was a tipping point: The Mantra had started to erode the classroom culture as much as it was there to support it. A decision was made: The Mantra was no more.

Case Study 2: The journey of the Green Pen Pledge (adapting a routine)

In essence, the Green Pen Pledge is a call to arms for feedback within the classroom. Originally, with our founding cohort, it was a physical routine that indicated to students that now was the time to act on feedback within the classroom – a powerful way of motivating students to continuously improve work. Let’s take a look at the evolution of this routine:

Iteration 1:

1. Teacher states: ​‘Let’s get ready to check and change’
2. Students hold their green pen in the air
3. Teacher states: ​‘this is my green…’
4. Students reply in unison: ​‘pen!’
5. Students tap the desk with their pen twice
6. Teacher proceeds to give feedback to the class and students self-check and edit their work

Adjustments were soon made going into year 2 as we realised that some students took the opportunity to reply with ​‘pen!’ in a way that, hilariously to them, really disrupted the learning. Therefore:

Iteration 2:

1. Teacher states ​‘let’s get ready to check and change’
2. Students hold their green pen in the air
3. Teacher states: ​‘this is my green pen’
4. Students tap the desk with their pen twice
5. Teacher proceeds to give feedback to the class and students self-check and edit their work

A slight adaptation that responded to a minor, but crucial, cultural problem and minimised any behavioural issues emerging from an opportunity to shout ​‘pen!’ As students grew older, and teenager-dom kicked in, we found that the routine of the pledge, for some groups of students, wasted time due to a lack of enthusiasm or simple desire, as young people will, to push a boundary. Year 9 upwards therefore would see the routine adapted:

Iteration 3:

1. Teacher states: ​‘ok let’s have our green pens ready; this piece of feedback is going to be really important’
2. Students take their green pens out and simply hold them clearly in their hand (not raised)
3. Teacher scans the room to check everyone is on board and a 100% of students are focusing

The ritual and symbol of the green pen remains (a physical artefact of feedback mattering) but an adaptation has been made in response to the needs of staff and students.

Case Study 3: The Evolutions document

To take stock of established routines and simultaneously communicate with clarity adaptations to existing routines and their purpose to staff, senior leaders, going into Year 4, created an ​‘Evolutions’ document that outlined these ideas. This created absolute clarity at all levels of the organisation in a pledge to avoid lethal mutations and ensure the sustained effectiveness of existing routines around the school. Below is an example snipped from this document.

James Dyke is Head of English at Dixons Trinity Chapeltown. He is also an Evidence Lead for Dixons Academies Trust, focusing on the evidence around effective routines.