Research School Network: Carefully considering contextual factors when implementing change And what might happen if they are not. By Will Smith, Deputy Director of Somerset Research School

One of the details from the new implementation guidance report that really struck home was the importance of uniting staff around a shared goal or purpose. However, from my experience leading on professional development, if the contextual factors are not considered, then it is hard to create a united front.

Here at The Blue School, we introduced a coaching model for our CPD around five years ago. We went from a traditional model of INSET and Twilight where experienced staff or guest speakers would come in and discuss whatever might need to be discussed. Next, we’d all go ​‘that was great,’ go back to our classrooms, check our emails and only the most inspired or super diligent would remember to effectively implement what we’d heard effectively. Like a number of schools, implementation was perhaps touched upon, we might write down a few notes on how we were going to use the training we had just received, but oftentimes it was left there.

We wanted to change things so we put together a team of experienced teachers who would become Teaching Coaches. They would deliver similar twilight sessions, however, we then asked teachers to put something from these sessions into practice, to try something new or different. Next, individual staff would then work with a 1−2−1 with a coach; they would meet at different points during the year, visit lessons seeing this ​‘new thing’ in practice, and then have a coaching conversation around what they saw.

Our aim was to have a model where theory led directly into practice. Alongside this, staff had feedback and support which meant the practice was effective; at the end of the year, we’d have new habits that were going to improve teaching and learning.

We were pretty confident that we had a number of the contextual factors ticked off:

• Evidence informed? Yes. We were drawing from the EEF guidance as you’d expect.
• Suitable for the setting? Yes. We are a large school with a broad range of experience. This model allows us to adapt to the needs of our staff. It had flexibility.
• Was it feasible? Yes. Coaches had non-contact time to carry out their role, and time in the year was allocated for staff as well. 
  

However, there were a few lessons from the first year.

We failed to unite everyone around what we were trying to achieve: particularly, in the 1−2−1 coaching meetings. Coaching is more commonplace now, but nonetheless, it was still worth making absolutely clear that we were providing staff with a form of structured reflection. We were not there to dictate what had to happen in lessons – this was the impression that some staff had.

Secondly, having a more flexible approach proved problematic. Time was being swallowed up, coaches were spending more time chasing people, finding space in their calendars that matched and so on than actually coaching… People were saying ​“look, I’d really like you to visit me with this class,” and the coaches were saying ​“ah, but I’m teaching then so…”

Sadly, in our first year, the staff experience was inconsistent.

Our second year was much clearer in when, where and how these 1−2−1 meetings would take place. There was a more standardised approach to them, they were more closely monitored, we also did a body of work around matching staff to coaches based on timetables.

So – we got staff to say which class they were going to try a new approach with before matching them to a coach. It was no good matching a teacher who only taught Tuesdays and Thursdays to a coach who had no non-contacts to visit lessons on those days.

Why did we not think of this initially? Well, in our defence, we were so excited about this new approach, so keen to crack on, that we did not spend adequate time thinking about the practicalities.

In our second year, we were much more strategic about the when and the where, not just the why. That included times, rooms, staff and outcomes.

We monitored more closely: surveys, focus groups, spreadsheets, etc. If we had these in the first year. they would have highlighted if any of the contextual factors are creating barriers.

As a busy teacher, I am more likely to unite around change if I know what, when, where and how, and can see how it fits in with all the other things I have to juggle.