Research School Network: Before you write next year’s development plan… Implementation plan

Since 2016, the UK has had six Prime Ministers. Football managers also rarely seem to be afforded the luxury of time: a disappointing result can quickly become evidence that a different leader is needed, as though meaningful change should be visible almost immediately. Whether in politics or sport, we often expect new leadership to produce immediate results, despite knowing that lasting change rarely happens that quickly. And schools can sometimes fall into the same trap.

We know a great deal about effective implementation. We know that lasting change requires time, careful planning and deliberate action. Yet, when it comes to school improvement, we often expect to see evidence of success within weeks. We look for immediate impact, despite knowing that early signs can be superficial and that the changes which make the greatest difference are often the least visible at first.

The irony is that we already understand this in the classroom. As Dylan Wiliam reminds us, ​“performance is a poor proxy for learning.” A pupil producing the correct answer today does not necessarily mean learning has been secured. We know that understanding develops gradually and that what we see in one lesson tells us very little about what pupils will retain weeks or months later. Yet, when we lead change, we can forget this same principle. We judge implementation by what is immediately visible rather than whether new ways of working are becoming established.

This is something I have wrestled with throughout my career. I have felt the scrutiny of being asked what is evident after only a few weeks of introducing a new approach. Equally, I have worked with schools where leaders confidently explained that a particular issue had been addressed years ago, only to discover that, while the actions had taken place, the intended change had never truly become part of everyday practice.

As we move towards another academic year, many leaders will already be thinking ahead. Pupils will move into new classes, colleagues will take on new roles and for some schools, September will bring changes in leadership too. It is a season of fresh starts, renewed ambition and new priorities. The most effective leaders I work alongside spend less time searching for the next initiative and more time interrogating the challenges they are trying to solve. They recognise that implementation starts not with selecting an approach, but with understanding the context well enough to choose the right one.

One of the most valuable tools I have used when leading change is Education Endowment Foundation’s old implementation plan template.

What I particularly value about the structure is that it encourages a fundamentally different way of thinking from a traditional school development plan. Too often, our plans become little more than lists of activities: deliver training, purchase resources, undertake monitoring and review impact. There is nothing inherently wrong with those actions, but activity alone is no guarantee of better practice.

The implementation plan starts somewhere different. It asks us to define the challenge clearly, understand why it exists and consider the conditions needed for success before jumping to solutions. Rather than asking, What are we going to do? it asks, What needs to be true for this to work?
That distinction matters.

Over the years, I have seen schools invest considerable time and energy implementing sensible actions, only to discover later that they were tackling the wrong issue. The implementation process creates the discipline to slow down, build understanding and establish the conditions for success before deciding on the actions themselves.

Although these questions apply to every area of school improvement, the examples that follow come from mathematics. As schools prepare for September, it is the area I find myself reflecting on most, and it provides a useful lens through which to explore implementation in practice.

Imagine a school concerned that pupils are entering Key Stage 2 without the fluency needed to access increasingly complex mathematics. A traditional development plan might quickly lead to additional arithmetic sessions, greater emphasis on recall or the purchase of a new intervention programme. None of those responses are unreasonable. But through assessment, lesson observations and conversations with pupils, we may discover that the issue is not simply one of retrieval. Some children continue to rely on counting strategies because they have not yet developed secure understanding of the composition of number. They can produce correct answers, but they do not yet recognise the relationships between numbers that enable efficient, flexible thinking.

This is where the work of Learning Trajectories and the NCETM becomes so valuable. Fluency is not built through repetition alone. It develops as children build increasingly sophisticated mental structures: seeing five within eight, recognising ten as a unit that can be composed and decomposed, and using those relationships to reason rather than count. If those foundations remain insecure, increasing practice may improve performance without strengthening understanding.

The conversation therefore changes. Rather than asking, How do we improve fluency?, we begin asking, How do we deepen teachers’ understanding of how number sense develops so that classroom experiences strengthen those underlying structures? Once we understand the root cause, the next steps become much clearer.

The EEF’s implementation guidance reminds us that successful implementation begins by developing a shared understanding of both the challenge and the evidence. In practice, this means investing in professional learning that develops expertise rather than simply explaining procedures.

In mathematics, this matters enormously. Teachers need to understand why particular representations reveal mathematical structure, how ideas develop over time and how today’s lesson connects with tomorrow’s learning. Without that understanding, implementation risks becoming procedural rather than principled.

The EEF’s guidance on effective professional development reinforces this point. Professional learning is most likely to influence classroom practice when it builds knowledge, develops specific techniques and creates opportunities for colleagues to rehearse, refine and revisit those techniques over time. If we expect teaching to evolve, our professional development needs to be implemented with the same care and patience as the classroom approaches we hope to see. The schools that sustain change are rarely those doing the greatest number of things. More often, they are the schools that understand a small number of things exceptionally well and remain committed to them long enough for them to become part of everyday practice.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of implementation is resisting the temptation to judge it too soon. Implementation outcomes are not pupil outcomes. Early on, we may simply be looking for evidence that colleagues understand the intended approach. Later, we might see greater consistency in classroom practice. Only over time should we expect those changes to influence pupils’ mathematical understanding. That can feel uncomfortable. Accountability does not pause while implementation takes hold, but perhaps that discomfort tells us something.

As September approaches, many of us will soon begin writing next year’s development plans. Before adding another priority, another initiative or another monitoring activity, perhaps we should pause and ask ourselves some difficult questions.

> Do we really understand the challenge we are trying to address?

> Have we defined it clearly enough?

> Have we built the professional knowledge needed for practice to change?

> Are we implementing a carefully considered approach, or simply completing a list of actions?

. And if we came back in two years’ time, would this still be part of the way our school works, or would it be another initiative that quietly disappeared?

Before you write next year’s development plan, don’t begin by deciding what your school will do differently. Begin by asking whether you understand your current reality well enough to change it.