If We Expect Schools to Differentiate for Students, Districts Must Differentiate for Schools

"We can't hold schools accountable for what we're unwilling to model as district leaders."

A Shift in Perspective

We would never accept a one-size-fits-all approach to student learning. Every educator knows that students come to us with different strengths, needs, backgrounds, and readiness levels. We've built entire frameworks around meeting students where they are—Response to Intervention, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, differentiated instruction, personalized learning pathways. These aren't just buzzwords; they're foundational beliefs about how learning works.

So why do we apply one-size-fits-all leadership strategies to our schools?

If differentiation is non-negotiable for students, shouldn't it also be non-negotiable for the schools serving them? Yet across districts nationwide, principals receive identical professional development, attend the same meetings filled with identical agendas, and implement the same initiatives—regardless of whether their school is thriving or struggling to keep its doors open.

The disconnect is striking. We've somehow convinced ourselves that equity means treating every school exactly the same, when what it actually requires is giving every school what it needs to succeed.

The Reality: District Leaders Are Already Stretched Too Thin

District leaders don't have the time or capacity to support every school the same way—nor should they. Just like we ask schools to differentiate for students, districts must differentiate for schools. Some campuses need intensive support. Others are already thriving and need to be trusted, not micromanaged. By treating every school the same, we risk overwhelming the system, under-supporting those who need it most, and invalidating the work of high-performing schools. If we want equity for students, we need equity in how we support schools.

The mathematics of district leadership simply don't work when we insist on equal treatment. A district with fifteen schools and five instructional coaches cannot provide the same level of intensive support to every campus. Attempting to do so creates a dangerous illusion—the appearance of support without the substance needed to drive real change.

Meanwhile, high-performing schools with strong systems and capable leadership teams often feel frustrated by mandatory training that doesn't match their needs. They sit through sessions on classroom management basics when they're ready to tackle nuanced instructional coaching models. They complete compliance checklists designed for struggling schools when their energy could be focused on innovation and continuous improvement.

A Personal Perspective: When Equal Treatment Undermines Equity

In several districts we've partnered with, there's been an "equal treatment equals fairness" mindset. Every principal gets the same resources, the same meetings, the same training. But school outcomes aren't equal—nor are the starting conditions.

District leaders are already stretched thin. When every school gets the same, it often means the ones who need more don't get enough, and the ones who are doing well get burdened with unnecessary initiatives.

One district flipped the script. They began using school-level data as a universal screener. They asked: which schools are doing fine on their own, and which ones need targeted or intensive support?

The change was dramatic:

District leaders focused deeply on the schools who needed more intensive support, providing differentiated coaching, walkthrough tools, and targeted implementation monitoring—without overwhelming themselves. They could finally dig into the real work of school improvement because they weren't trying to be everywhere at once. Their calendars reflected true priorities rather than an impossible attempt to give equal time to fifteen different campuses with fifteen different realities.

High-performing schools finally felt validated. Rather than being pulled into the same professional development sessions and compliance checklists as schools in need of major support, they were trusted to continue what was working—with lighter-touch support and more autonomy. Principals who had been leading successful campuses for years no longer had to sit through trainings on basic systems they'd mastered long ago.

The result?

• Struggling schools improved because they received the concentrated support they actually needed.

• Trust increased across the district because leaders felt seen and respected for their actual circumstances.

• District capacity was used strategically—not stretched thin trying to do everything for everyone.

• And perhaps most importantly, the message became clear: we practice what we preach about differentiation.

From MTSS for Students to MTSS for Schools

We expect schools to use data and systems of support to meet student needs. Districts should do the same for schools. The Multi-Tiered System of Support framework has revolutionized how we think about student intervention. It's time to apply that same thinking to school leadership. When we talk about MTSS at the student level, we're describing a data-driven, responsive system that provides increasing levels of support based on demonstrated need. The exact same principle applies to schools.

How It Looks in Practice

Use Data to Screen and Identify

• For student MTSS, we use universal screeners and diagnostics to understand where each learner stands. For district MTSS, we need school-level data—achievement trends over multiple years, teacher retention rates, family and staff survey data, walkthrough patterns, and implementation fidelity measures. This comprehensive view helps us see which schools are maintaining momentum and which are showing signs of struggle.

• The key is looking at multiple data points, not just test scores. A school might have strong achievement but concerning teacher turnover. Another might have engaged families but inconsistent instructional practices. The screening process should reveal the full picture of school health.

Assign Tiered Supports Based on Need

• Tier I represents universal support that every school receives: leadership professional development, shared principal professional learning communities, district-wide communication, and access to core resources. These are the foundational elements that maintain a cohesive system.

• Tier II provides targeted coaching for schools showing some areas of concern but maintaining overall stability. This might include peer site visits to observe successful practices, facilitated data dives to build capacity in analysis and action planning, and targeted professional development addressing specific growth areas. These schools have strong foundations but need support in particular domains.

• Tier III delivers intensive, multi-pronged support for schools facing significant challenges. This includes on-site coaching with regular presence, implementation walkthroughs with real-time feedback, progress monitoring tools to track short-cycle improvements, and potentially staff restructuring or additional resource allocation. These schools need the district's most concentrated attention and most experienced support providers.

Use Short-Cycle Progress Monitoring

• For students, we don't wait until the end-of-year test to know if interventions are working. We use weekly formative checks and classroom performance data to make real-time adjustments.

• For schools, we should do the same—using implementation data like evidence of teacher practices from walkthroughs, PLC logs showing collaborative work, lesson plan quality, and student engagement indicators. These leading indicators tell us if changes are taking root long before we see movement in lagging achievement scores.

• The progress monitoring cycle for Tier III schools might be weekly or bi-weekly. For Tier II schools, monthly check-ins might suffice. Tier I schools may only need quarterly reviews unless data suggests a change in support level is warranted.

Modeling Matters: Principal Meetings as District-Level PLCs

We ask principals to lead PLCs that are collaborative, data-driven, and student-focused. These professional learning communities are supposed to be the engine of school improvement—places where teachers analyze students work together, share effective practices, solve problems collaboratively, and hold each other accountable for growth.

So why are so many principal meetings still full of announcements, logistics, and updates?

If we want building leaders to run effective PLCs, we need to model what that looks like. That means transforming principal gatherings from top-down information sessions into genuine professional learning communities for school leaders.

• Effective principal PLCs use meeting time to solve real problems of practice. Instead of reviewing the latest policy memo, principals might examine student discipline data across schools to identify patterns and share intervention strategies. They might analyze walkthrough data to understand instructional trends and brainstorm targeted professional development.

• They focus on implementation, not just information. Rather than hearing about a new initiative, principals work together to plan how it will roll out in their specific contexts, anticipate obstacles, and design support structures for their teachers.

• They share leadership among principals, recognizing that expertise exists throughout the room. The principal whose school excelled at family engagement might facilitate that discussion. The leader whose teachers successfully implemented new literacy practices might guide colleagues through the change management process they used.

• They examine school-level data together, learning to see patterns, ask probing questions, and challenge assumptions in a supportive environment. This collaborative analysis builds both skill and courage—the same courage we want principals to bring to their own teacher teams.

• They celebrate short-cycle wins and improvement, not just final outcomes. When a Tier III school shows evidence of more consistent PLC implementation, that's worth acknowledging. When teacher retention improves at a struggling campus, that progress deserves recognition even if test scores haven't moved yet.

We cannot expect principals to lead collaborative teams if they've never been part of one themselves. The district-level principal meeting is the most powerful professional development opportunity available—if we use it well.

This Isn't About More Work—It's About Smarter Work

District leaders don't need to do more. They need to do what works—what they already expect from their schools.

The beauty of this approach is that it actually creates more capacity, not less. When district leaders can focus intensive support on the schools that truly need it, they're not spread impossibly thin. When high-performing schools are trusted with autonomy, district leaders aren't micromanaging what's already working. When principal meetings become genuine professional learning rather than information dumps, everyone's time is used more effectively.

This shift requires letting go of the myth that equal always means equitable. It requires courage to say, "These three schools need us most right now, and we're going to concentrate our resources there." It requires trust to tell successful principals, "We believe in you—keep doing what's working and let us know how we can support your next-level goals."

When districts treat schools the way we ask schools to treat students, we build a culture of alignment, equity, and continuous improvement. We stop sending mixed messages about differentiation. We start walking the talk.

The result is a system where every school gets what it needs, district capacity is used strategically, and the exhausting cycle of trying to be everything to everyone finally ends.

Discussion Questions

How is your district differentiating support for schools based on real need? Are all schools receiving identical support regardless of their circumstances, or have you created tiered systems that allow for targeted intervention?

Are your principal meetings modeling what you expect principals to model in their buildings? If a teacher walked into your principal meeting, would they recognize the same collaborative, data-driven practices you're asking them to implement?