Leaders and educators at all levels of the educational system play a crucial role in organizing decision-making processes that transform what happens in districts, schools, and classrooms. Whether the goal is to improve attendance, implement evidence-based, culturally relevant instruction, or help adult learners complete a high school or college degree, educators are at the forefront of the challenging work of changing a system. Systems change to address simple to complex problems at structural, relational, and transformative levels can be achieved through a change or improvement process. How we engage in this process will likely impact whether we achieve our intended results and whether the change can be sustained over time.1
A continuous improvement or inquiry cycle graphic, a representation that outlines the change process, is a powerful tool for making informed decisions. Some inquiry cycle graphics are very straightforward, highlighting only the key steps for making informed decisions.2 Others bring a more intentional focus to a specific segment of the cycle (e.g., root cause analysis, implementation, evaluation), employ a particular lens such as equity, or ensure attention is paid to how interest holders are meaningfully engaged in decision-making.3
With a goal of helping educators make informed decisions using data and evidence to institute intentional and strategic changes, REL West places a strong emphasis on the use of an inquiry cycle that gives partners a firm foundation to move from data to evidence-based practices and policies to thoughtful planning, implementation, and monitoring to inform their change effort. It is specific enough to ensure key elements of the change process are addressed but general enough to be adapted to different contexts. We will briefly describe the segments of the inquiry cycle and provide two examples of how we have used the process in two different contexts to help partnering organizations make data-informed, evidence-based, and sustainable systems changes.
REL West Inquiry Cycle Process
While a change or improvement process may start anywhere in the cycle, it often is prompted by some new data or evidence becoming available. If that is the case, the improvement or change process begins with the predict segment. Before we see the data, we want to activate prior knowledge, surface assumptions, and make predictions. Curiosity is then aroused for the describe segment during which we look at data to see what stands out and note patterns to see if the predictions or assumptions are grounded in fact. In the describe segment, we caution against jumping to conclusions about root causes or solutions and instead generate factual statements about the data. To understand and prioritize, the next segment in the cycle, educators identify likely root causes, generating multiple theories of causation, as they dig deeper and collect additional data. They prioritize goals and determine which challenges to address first. Once there is a clear understanding of the needs or challenges to be addressed, then educators explore what's working. They consider which practices, strategies, or policies are supported by evidence and would likely resolve the challenges in their local context. These may be strategies from the broader field of research or a local program or policy with a track record of successful implementation. Using this information, educators design and implement a plan to meet the goals and address the needs identified earlier. Finally, to complete the cycle, educators monitor and evaluate implementation. They carefully consider what data and evidence they will collect to see if implementation is successful, how variation in implementation affects results, and what changes need to be made over the course of implementation. These segments often overlap with one another, as the graphic suggests. For example, as educators explore what's working, they may need to review their data from the describe and understand and prioritize segments to be sure they choose the strategy or practice that is right for their context.
This cycle ensures the development of a clear and focused theory of improvement. It honors and encourages strong engagement of the interest holders--teachers, students, families, and/or community members--at each point in the cycle. It also requires a high level of transparency during the improvement efforts so the identified needs and challenges, plans for change, and expectations for implementation are clear to all interest holders. When interest holders feel engaged and understand why a change is being made, it is more likely the improvements will be accepted, implemented, and sustained.
To follow are two examples of how the cycle informed the structure of two REL West coaching projects.
Improving the use of a new elementary literacy adoption in Lyon County, NV
For the 2023/24 school year, Lyon County School District, a geographically large, rural district near Reno, NV, adopted a new literacy curriculum that took a very different approach to literacy instruction than the previous adoption. The district hoped the new curriculum would reverse some of the trends in literacy achievement, especially among multilingual learner students. While all 14 of the schools with elementary grades were expected to use the same curriculum and assessments, each had their own educational ecosystem defined by geography, and the size and demographics of their student populations. For example, one was a remote K-12 school with multiple grade levels in a single classroom, while others were larger K-4 elementary schools or a middle school that included fifth and sixth grades. To help leaders support teachers' understanding of the key evidence-based pedagogical shifts in the new curriculum and how those were embedded in the curricular materials aligned with their school's particular needs and context, district leaders partnered with REL West and the Northwest Nevada Regional Professional Development Program (NWRPDP) to form a design team that would lead a districtwide professional learning community (PLC) for elementary principals and their reading specialists or lead teachers.
The first step was to collaboratively build a dashboard and discussion protocol for site leaders to display and summarize data from new curriculum assessments to help them better understand student needs and convey that information to classroom teachers at their sites (Predict, Describe, and begin to Understand and Prioritize). As part of each PLC session, REL West and NWRPDP provided training to the school leaders on the science of reading and how the research was reflected in instructional practices from, for example, the What Works Clearinghouse practice guides. With their new literacy data and this background knowledge of the research, participants identified a focus area from the literacy data. They explored key strategies aligned with research and considered where and how it was used in their curriculum (Explore What's Working). Each school already had a site plan, a plan for support for low readers, and for many, a corrective action plan for supporting multilingual learners. Rather than write a new plan, participants learned from the design team and their colleagues about how they could add to their existing plans and professional learning efforts or revise them to be more focused, given their specific needs, successes, and challenges. They also aligned them with existing district professional learning opportunities (Design and Implement a Plan). Participants shared their implementation journeys with their colleagues, emphasizing the evidence-based practices they were focused on and the data they had used (Implement and Monitor). Participants especially appreciated this time for collaborative learning. One teacher leader commented: "The collaboration was amazing. In my school, it sometimes feels like an island, so it was nice to connect with others and share ideas." In the final session, participants discussed their end-of-year assessment data and what their literacy focus area might be for the 2024/25 school year. This completed the cycle and moved them back around to the predict and describe segments to start the new school year.
Improving early career teacher retention in Utah (U-ECTR) project
In Utah, like many states, the share of teachers leaving the profession in their first five years is high. In 2021, it was 43 percent in Utah, which is at the higher end nationally in early career attrition.4 Teacher turnover is fiscally and academically costly and the Utah State Board of Education (USBE) leadership wanted to better understand and address this high rate of turnover.5 To do this, REL West is partnering with the USBE to engage with district HR directors and professional development leaders in a PLC focused on better understanding the causes of newer teachers leaving their positions and on improving early career teacher retention. Misdiagnosing the reasons teachers leave the profession (given local/regional variations) can lead to ill-suited or ineffective interventions.6 The PLC, therefore, is focused on systems investigation and root cause analysis followed by deliberate, targeted local intervention planning and implementation. In other words, it is leveraging the cycle of inquiry to ensure evidence-based, locally valid, and impactful solutions are implemented to retain early career teachers.
In the first PLC session, participants learned about the national and state data and research regarding teacher retention and attrition at various stages of their careers. This set the stage and piqued interest in their local data, which they reviewed in the second session (Predict and Describe). Participants reviewed Utah teacher exit survey data and reflected on how this aligned with their local context. They learned how a root cause analysis could help them better understand the underlying causes of teacher attrition in their own districts and developed questions and areas of inquiry they would want to focus on (Understand and Prioritize).7 Over the next several sessions, participants planned how they would collect data to answer their questions (e.g., via structured "stay interviews" with early career teachers) and shared results from their local investigations. They also learned about promising practices and research on topics such as induction processes and supportive working conditions from experts in the field (Exploring What Works). Between each session, REL West staff met with each district to customize the learning and ensure that district leaders were clear on how to advance their own inquiry activities. Districts have begun the Design and Implement a Plan component, ensuring they have the data to Monitor and Evaluate what they do.
In this PLC, engaging others in the learning has been a critical component. Participants are regularly learning from REL West and USBE staff about the most recent state and national data and initiatives regarding teacher retention, as well as learning from other experts on evidence-based practices. Participants also learn with and from one another in structured knowledge sharing to build capacity to improve teacher retention. Finally, as noted, many PLC participants are also engaging teachers in the inquiry through structured stay interviews. This honors the teachers' experiences, provides current and nuanced information on which to base decisions, and makes these early career professionals feel heard and valued which, in itself, can aid in retaining teachers!
Considerations for educational leaders
Before entering an improvement or change process in your district, we encourage educational leaders to consider the following questions.
- Where are you starting in the improvement cycle? Do you need to revisit any components before moving forward such as examining additional data or researching evidence-based practices?
- What data do you have and need to better understand the local context?
- Who needs to be directly involved in this improvement process? What other interest holders are affected by the decisions you'll make and thus should be engaged in a meaningful way in the process?
- What research or sources of evidence-based practice, such as the What Works Clearinghouse practice guides, or other sources, will you use to guide your exploration of what might work in your context and your planning for implementation? Are there any promising practices within your district that might inform your planning?
- What data sources might you use both for the needs assessment and root cause analysis components and for monitoring and evaluating implementation?
1 Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Senge, P. (2018). The water of systems change. FSG. Retrieved from https://www.fsg.org/resource/ water_of_systems_change/; Valdez, A., Bell, A., Derby, K., Dolle, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Rovins, M., Walrond, N., & Willis, J. (2024). Systems change at WestEd: Six guiding principles. WestEd. Retrieved from https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/WestEd-Systems-Change-Six-Guiding-Principles_FINAL-ADA.pdf
2 Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/12
3 Howard, E., & O'Brien, C. (2012). Unlocking your community's hidden assets: A guidebook to community asset-mapping. Alabama: Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved from https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/d6_legacy_files/downloads/publication/community assetmapping2.pdf; Proctor, E. K., Powell, B. J., & McMillen, J. C. (2013). Implementation strategies: Recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implementation Science, 8(139); Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; McKay, S. (2017). Quality improvement approaches: Six Sigma. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/quality-improvement-approaches-six-sigma/; Safir, S., & Dugan, J. (2021). Street data: A next-generation model for equity, pedagogy, and school transformation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; Valdez, A., Cerna, R., & Hashmi, S. (2023). Participatory systems change for equity: An inquiry guide for child-, youth-, and family-serving agencies. WestEd. Retrieved from https:// www.wested.org/resources/participatory-systems-change-for-equity/
4 Blevins, L., Boone, M., Cantlon, M., Scott, S., & Li, W. (2021). Report to the Utah Legislature: A performance audit of teacher retention within Utah's public education system (Report No. 2021-13). Salt Lake City, UT: Office of the Utah Legislative Auditor General.
5 Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S., & Schiman, J. (2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on the quality of instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55, 132-148; Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36.
6 Finster, M. (2015). Diagnosing causes of teacher retention, mobility and turnover and matching to interventions: Guidelines for TIF grantees. Rockville, MD: Westat.
7 Regional Educational Laboratory West. (REL West, 2018). An improvement science approach to understanding a problem in your system. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Accessible online at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/west/relwestFiles/pdf/FINAL-REL-Improvement-Science-Infographic-508.pdf.
