As a Continua consultant, I’ve had the opportunity to support schools and districts on their MTSS journeys for the last 10 years. Across Continua’s portfolio of school districts we’ve observed human dynamics on teaching staffs that foster innovation and successful implementation, as well as those that stifle or stunt well intended school improvement growth. On the faculties where trust is high and staff have agreed upon ways to respectfully disagree, educators experience significant growth in their capacity to select, commit to and implement strategies for student success. And in the schools where norms exist but aren’t a set of living agreements, or where the voices of dissent are empowered to divide and dominate staff morale, it is nearly impossible to lift and get traction with any initiative.

Collaborative Behavior: Observable, Measurable Norms or Agreements

In Continua’s work to support change in school cultures and practices, we have witnessed across districts, grade levels, and positions, the importance of norms that include a few criteria:

• They are co-constructed by the educators and/or students using them
• They name the behaviors that the group identifies as most important for successful collaboration
• The agreements are stated in terms of what people will say or do
• When they are not enacted, or if their opposite is employed, the behavior can be named and respectfully called in to remind the group of the agreed upon behavior

When we engage leadership teams, intervention teams, PLCs, district leadership teams, superintendent cabinets, or entire school staffs in this process, we recommend 3 crucial steps:

1. Agree to 3-5 observable norms that can be measured and are co-constructed by all group members. Ensure all members can support these norms
2. Co-construct success criteria for what the norms will look and sound like in action
3. Determine how a broken norm will be safely addressed

Most schools or teams we engage with have done some of step 1, and typically not yet explored steps 2 or 3. They may have co-constructed norms as a whole staff and use the same norms with their leadership teams, or vice versa. Most often we find a mix of observable behaviors like “start and end on time” with aspirational ideas like “act kinder than necessary” or “assume positive intent,” lofty and well-intended phrases that ultimately cannot be calibrated or observed. How do I know if you are assuming positively? How can your intent be transparent? Observing and measuring positive intent is not feasible or worthy of educator precious time.

Why Must it be Observable?

In our collaborative, learning stances, both with each other as adults and with students, we can create psychological safety and predictability when we agree upon behaviors that we experience enacting. When we can count on our colleagues, leaders, and learners to follow the agreements that we all contributed to constructing, it helps us increasingly feel willing to take risks, share feedback and be vulnerable as learners. When we see each other behaving in the ways we envisioned our belief in the group increases and our collective efficacy is strengthened.

Leaders and educators aren’t always enthused to talk about norms or trust. Discussing how we might handle conflict feels uncomfortable, and for some, it feels opposite of the values their families and teachers imparted upon them. With the right messaging and sponsorship from leaders, folks skeptical of measurable norms and discussing how to handle conflict can shift their perspectives. When given the tools and opportunities to practice that discomfort dissipates and the issues necessary to address become easier to approach.