The odds seem stacked against school turnaround efforts. In fact, a recent study funded by the U.S. Department of Education found that overall the investment of $3.5 billion in School Improvement Grants (SIGs) to struggling schools had no impact on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.
But some schools that received School Improvement Grants did achieve positive results. One school that succeeded was Sunnyside High School in Sunnyside, Washington, where one of us (Chuck) was the principal from 2010 to 2012 and central office transformation facilitator from 2012 to 2013.
A High School Transformed
In 2009, Sunnyside was in the bottom 5 percent of the state in terms of graduation rate. Attendance was spotty, and the dropout rate was high. Sunnyside served a student population that had a myriad of challenges. Many of the students' parents worked as migrant farm laborers and held down two or three jobs. Ninety-five percent of students were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, and 14.5 percent were designated as English language learners.
At the point when Chuck started at Sunnyside, teachers and the support staff were discouraged, students had lost their focus, and administrators' time was consumed by crises. Blaming and finger-pointing were widespread among administrators, staff, and students. Perhaps saddest of all was that the students blamed themselves and had low expectations for their school and for their future. As one student said to Chuck, "This is Sunnyside, mister. What do you expect?"
But over the next four years, the graduation rate at Sunnyside rose from 49 percent to 85 percent, and attendance and morale increased while dropout rates and disciplinary actions diminished. At the beginning of the 2010 school year, just 18 percent of the seniors and 20 percent of the juniors had been on track to graduate. Yet at the end of the school year, 70.9 percent of the seniors graduated, and the following year 78.4 percent of the junior class graduated. By 2016, the graduation rate stood at 91 percent. That meant that between 2010 and 2016, 468 students graduated from Sunnyside who likely wouldn't have graduated if the school hadn't changed.
The change came about when the leadership team exhibited new behaviors based on new thinking. Sunnyside applied for a federally funded School Improvement Grant in the 2009–2010 school year, and Chuck Salina became the turnaround principal. Chuck and his leadership team first worked to build a conceptual framework to serve as the north star of the school's improvement work and to ensure that decisions were intentional, not haphazard. The framework included three components (see fig. 1): academic press (high expectations); social supports (helping others achieve desired results); and relational trust. Although we have described the full story of Sunnyside's turnaround elsewhere, in this article we explore the third component, relational trust, which undergirded the entire framework.
Figure 1. Our Optimal Conceptual Framework
Source: Adapted from Powerless to Powerful: Leadership for School Change (p. 19), by C. Salina, S. Girtz, & J. Eppinga, 2016, London: Rowan & Littlefield. © C. Salina, S. Girtz, and J. Eppinga.
We believe relational trust is present when people feel safe (though not necessarily comfortable), believe their colleagues will put in the necessary time to do the heavy lifting with them, and believe that they and their colleagues have something to offer. A pillar of the school's successful effort to build relational trust was the practice of holding ongoing one-on-one conversations.
Implementing One-on-One Conversations
In low-performing schools, leaders often act in isolation, implementing well-intentioned solutions with little input from or awareness of those who will be affected. As a result, teachers feel that change is done to them rather than with them. You'll hear comments like, "The district and the administration only care about boosting test scores," and "The principal has no idea how much time and effort this new math curriculum will require."
But for real school transformation to occur, each staff member must take ownership of the school's mission and must feel that his or her views are recognized and valued. That's why establishing relational trust should be the first priority. Relational trust is the glue that binds people together and motivates them. It grows when people understand the role they need to play and believe they'll be supported in playing it.
At Sunnyside, we decided that to establish relational trust, the leadership team needed to listen deeply, one-on-one, to each staff person on a regular and ongoing basis. Our goals were to reconnect staff members to what gave their professional lives purpose and meaning, to accurately identify the current realities, and to engage everyone in finding solutions to problems.
Chuck assigned each of the five members of the leadership team to engage in one-on-one conversation with 20–25 staff members. The leadership team developed a common list of questions to ask all staff members in these conversations, such as: "What are we doing well as a school?" "What should we do differently?" "If you were in charge, what is one schoolwide change you'd make to be more successful in your teaching?" Although the conversations had no set script, they were intentional; the purpose was to listen to how each staff person defined the current reality and envisioned the ideal toward which we were collectively striving.
The concerns that teachers expressed fell into the realms of behavior management, social-emotional issues, and achievement. Teachers made such statements as, "If the kids would just come to school, we could teach them," "Administrators need to support us and make students toe the line," and "The kids are running the school." Finger-pointing was rampant, and teachers made it clear that they felt unsupported.
Part of the purpose of these initial conversations was to assess each staff member's individual needs and his or her readiness to re-engage with the mission of the organization. We incorporated the perceptual data we acquired from the one-on-ones into our leadership action plan, analyzing the issues our teachers raised to see what types of support they were asking for to help them meet students' needs. We also incorporated achievement data, but unlike many leadership teams, we put the bulk of the emphasis on perceptual data—because we believed that focusing on achievement data without an understanding of the why behind that data was likely to lead us astray.
We also recognized that it was important to spend an equitable (but not necessarily equal) amount of time with every staff member, paying special attention to staff members who seemed the most disenfranchised, listening to these teachers' messages and finding common ground. The staff member who may appear to be the most challenging often has the most insight and is a powerful informal leader of the school.
For example, one such person at Sunnyside was a math teacher who insisted that the school's traditional practice of bringing in outside consultants to provide the math teachers with professional development wasn't working. At first, we assumed that this teacher was simply disgruntled and resistant to changing his instructional practice, but when we listened to him in one-on-one conversations, we realized that he was right: We could do away with the external professional development and allow the teachers to engage in their own problem-solving process. In other words, the resources we needed—both to diagnose the problem and to address it—were already in the building.
We were able to solve this and other problems because we reflected on what we heard in one-on-ones and brought information back to the leadership team. We looked for patterns and themes in what teachers were telling us. We intentionally discussed with the staff, both one-on-one and in small groups, their perceptions of the current achievement, social-emotional, and behavior realities. We told them what we saw, without soft-pedaling it and without pointing any fingers. The ultimate goal in this process was to make sure that at any given time, the spotlight was shining on the right problem.
We realized that to boost academic achievement, students needed additional instruction, so we instituted peer tutoring and after-school support. In the social-emotional realm, our one-on-one conversations with both teachers and students informed us that students were feeling unconnected to the school. We responded by, among other things, creating a Freshman Social Support group to help students transition to high school and feel a sense of belonging. In the behavioral realm, we became aware that students were struggling because they weren't making it to school on time, or at all. To address this issue, we implemented a Teen Development Group in which students met with community members to engage in character education activities that promoted resilience.
Even as the school moves forward, one-on-ones can't be put on the back burner. In Sunnyside's ongoing improvement efforts, the day-to-day work of leaders is to meet with staff daily—conducting intentional one-on-ones, based on questions developed in our bi-weekly leadership meetings to keep us focused. This work is essential for two reasons: 1) It provides valuable information about whether the support systems we've implemented are working and what we need to do to improve them; 2) It keeps each staff member feeling heard, connected to the school, and focused on the overall mission. One-on-ones are the starting point in making wise decisions and developing relational trust; they also must live on beyond the urgent and important concerns and be used to shape the ongoing vision of the school.
The Power of Listening
Implementing changes without getting input from the people whose daily jobs will be impacted is a recipe for distrust and disillusionment. A leader who is intent on developing a cohesive workforce with high morale will spend as much as 50 percent of his or her day listening to, and speaking with, other leaders and staff. When teachers see leaders enacting new behaviors based on new beliefs, they'll try them too. A cooperative spirit develops, and staff, administrators, and students end their day feeling energized and cared for rather than drained.
The more school leaders listen to staff, the better they can guide the development of a schoolwide vision and related action plans that include everyone's input and commitment. If one-on-ones are done correctly, leaders will never be surprised at a faculty meeting by what the staff is thinking; nor will staff ever be surprised by leaders' thinking, because there will be true common ground and a related plan of action created together.
Most teachers truly believe in their mission of educating all students; they ask only for support in living it out. When leaders listen to them and employ their ideas in the school, relational trust flourishes. Not only do teachers regain their excitement about teaching, but they also become more open to learning. When that happens, still more intentional conversations can be held that result in the school's moving ever more strongly toward its goals.
