When Improvement Plans Stall: The Hidden Knowledge Gaps Behind Failed School Change

“The main problem with educational change is not resistance - it’s the absence of a coherent plan built on a deep understanding of the system.” 

-  Michael Fullan

We've All Seen It

A school or district adopts a bold improvement plan. Maybe it’s a new math curriculum, a bilingual program, or an instructional framework focused on reading clarity.

The launch is optimistic. A few PD days, a timeline, maybe even a consultant. But six months later, little has actually changed. Classrooms look the same. The data hasn’t moved. Teachers feel fatigued. Leaders feel frustrated.

What happened?

It’s easy to blame buy-in or effort, but that’s often not the real issue. The deeper problem? Teams are being asked to plan for and lead change without the knowledge needed to do it well.

A Framework for Leading Real Change

Through our work supporting schools and districts to improve, we’ve identified four essential areas of knowledge that are critical for effective school change. These aren’t just abstract theories - they’re practical lenses (based on experience and research) for assessing team capacity and making smart decisions.

Let’s look at each one through a common scenario: adopting a new math curriculum.

1. Conceptual Understanding (What We’re Changing)

This is about deep expertise in the actual content or initiative being implemented.

In the case of a new math curriculum, that means understanding the instructional shifts it requires your teachers to make: things like building conceptual understanding over procedural drills, increasing student discourse, using open-ended problems, and prioritizing reasoning. Leaders or leadership teams must be able to name these shifts, model them, and recognize when implementation veers off course. You can't create an effective improvement plan, if you're not really clear on what the goal looks like.

Without this, walkthroughs become checklists, and coaching conversations stay surface-level without identifying pathways to change.

2. Contextual Awareness (Where We’re Starting From)

Contextual awareness means knowing the terrain you’re starting on - staff readiness, cultural dynamics, community values, and the district’s history with change.

In one district, a new math adoption followed several other major initiatives that had fizzled out. Teachers were skeptical - not because they didn’t value better math instruction, but because they were burned out. A team that recognized this built in time for listening, acknowledged the fatigue, and paced the work accordingly.

Change doesn’t land in a vacuum - it lands in real people’s lived experiences. Understanding context helps identify important barriers to address and also potential leverage points that can be used.

3. Systems Thinking (How It All Connects)

Systems thinking ensures leaders consider how the change interacts with everything else in the school or district.

That new math curriculum? It might require different approaches to assessment, a change in the building schedule, revised intervention structures, shifts in how special education services work, and changes to the professional development calendar. When these connections are not strategically planned for people feel disconnected and implementation faces additional barriers and friction.

When systems don’t align, confusion grows, momentum dies, and burnout thrives.

4. Change Management (How We Make It Happen)

Even with clarity, context, and systems insight - change doesn’t happen on its own. Leaders must design the process through clear communication, pacing, supporting structures, and early wins that build momentum.

In one successful rollout, a district started by piloting the new math curriculum in just a few classrooms. Student work was shared at staff meetings. Pilot teachers became peer coaches. This strategy built curiosity and demand for the full implementation.

Change requires deliberate momentum. It doesn’t spread just because it’s a good idea.

Putting It All Together

In each example above, the same initiative succeeded or stalled based on whether teams had strength across all four areas of change knowledge.

• Great content knowledge without systems thinking? The adoption dies in misalignment.

• A detailed rollout plan without context awareness? Staff burn out or quietly resist.

• Strong understanding of the shifts but no change management strategy? The vision never makes it into classrooms.

Sustainable change requires leadership teams to build capacity in all four areas - conceptual understanding, contextual awareness, systems thinking, and change management.

These are not roles for a single leader to carry. They are capacities for the team to assess and grow. Use this framework to map your team’s strengths, identify your gaps, and guide both your planning and your implementation.

Bonus Insight: When Consultants Help - and When They Don’t

External consultants can accelerate change - but only when they recognize and support all four areas of the framework.

Too often, consultants deliver excellent training (conceptual understanding) but fail to understand the local culture (context) or the systems their work impacts (systems thinking). They leave teams with new information but no path to sustainable implementation.

A good consultant transfers knowledge. A great one builds your team’s ability to lead change on its own.

Reflection Question

Which of the four change knowledge areas is your team strongest in, and where do you need to grow?