Collaborative Short-Term Action Planning (CSTAP) protocol is based on Morrison et al.
(2019) Strategic Doing questions that promote agile learning conversations and continuous learning. When executing strategic plans, Morrison et al. (2019) argue strategy is about addressing the question of where we are going and how we are going to get there? However, they warn this is not enough to put a strategy into action. Therefore, Morrison et al. (2019) developed Strategic Doing to catalyze strategic action through shared leadership and the development of draft short-term action plans that facilitate deep learning, quick decisions, commitment to action, and frequent feedback loops. Strategic Doing asks four questions: “What could we do? What should we do? What will we do?
What is our 30/30?” (Morrison et al., 2019, p. 155). The 30/30 question is the teams’
commitment for when they will meet to share their learnings and to set the direction for the agreed-upon number of days (i.e., 30 days). Since most school improvement work involves addressing technical/adaptive challenges, that have a definable problem but require learning to make progress (Yamaguchi et al., 2017), Strategic Doing enables the adaptation of strategic plan strategies for local contexts. VanGronigen and Meyers’
(2018) conclude in their study of the quality in a sample of 410 short-cycle SIPs that implementing the plan through short-term cycles energizes schools to invest in targeted priorities, leverage resources, and build a foundation for sustainable change.
The CSTAP protocol introduces short-cycle planning into the SIP process (see Appendix D), which provides a collaborative communication protocol, that is designed simply to quickly focus teacher conversations, develop shared leadership, and guide SIP implementation decisions. Katz et al. (2018) demonstrate protocols “provide a systematic approach to professional dialogue that supports teachers/leaders to reflect on their
practice [and] promote effective and efficient communication and problem-solving” (p.
81). The CSTAP focuses direction and facilitates quick decisions that are student-centered, collaborative, and impactful to school improvement. The CSTAP protocol adapts Morrison et al. (2019) draft, short-term action plans, and includes the Strategic Doing questions and tactics to promote shared leadership and agile, collaborative school improvement. Donohoo and Katz (2020) emphasize quality implementation requires
“recursive cycles of progressive inquiry in which educators try something, use feedback to revise their approaches, try again, and so on, in order to realize the promise of
evidence-based practices in specific contexts” (p. 13). The CSTAP protocol aids teachers
in decision-making by asking teachers to brainstorm and rate their ideas using a 2x2 decision-making strategy. The simple 2x2 decision-making grid reduces the time in debating every proposed idea and quickly establishes the Big Easy: the strategy that is the easiest to implement and most impactful in meeting the needs of students.
There are several strengths to the CSTAP protocol. The CSTAP affords teachers the autonomy to engage in shared leadership for learning that addresses their current contexts and fosters collaborative practices focused on student learning. Teachers are generally isolated in their practices, with no formal structures, processes, or embedded time for collaboration. Moving from a siloed culture to collaborative practices is necessary to engage teachers in meaningful and relevant school improvement (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Furthermore, School X teachers are accustomed to a top-down approach to
professional learning and typically rely on the principal or external expert to lead them in their learning. This is exacerbated by the promotion of fidelity to best-practice and program implementation. Quality implementation requires teachers to adapt the best-practice programs and best-practices to their unique change contexts (Donohoo & Katz, 2020).
The CSTAP protocol addresses the limited time available to teachers to engage in
collaborative conversations, providing a flexible and responsive approach to enabling SIP implementation and adaptation to local contexts.
The CSTAP protocol engages teachers in agile learning conversations that foster a learning community. Alberta Education’s (2017) vision for quality professional practice is evidence-informed, contextualized, and optimizes teaching and learning. Edmondson (2013) notes that leaders who move from hierarchical approaches to flexible, dynamic teams that optimize peoples’ knowledge, talents, and strengths achieve fast-paced change
towards organizational goals. By engaging in learning conversations, teachers are building their capacity for professional collaboration. Professional collaboration builds teachers’ collective knowledge and expertise, “where practices and their impact are transparently tested, developed, circulated, and adapted” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p.
50). As teachers engage in agile learning conversations and continuous cycles of improvement, they develop a deeper understanding of the SIP priority areas that are defined by Alberta Education and the School District. This understanding creates stronger coherence in the systems, enabling a connection between the broader goals and their collaborative efforts and student outcomes.
Limitations to the CSTAP protocol solution includes the presumption that someone on the teacher team will have the instructional capacity for contributing innovative ideas during the development of the short-term plan. Given the low level of readiness of teachers to engage in innovative practices, the celebration of failures in addition to successes is essential to promote creative thinking and risk-taking in implementing new ideas (Edmondson, 2012).
Another limiting factor is the risk that teachers’ will not follow through on their commitments for implementing their 30/30 goal. One of the reasons Strategic Doing is successful in moving the identified strategies forward is that when team members follow through with their commitment to the team, it builds trust and relationships within the team (Morrison et al., 2019). If teachers do not meet their commitments, it may impact their relationships with others. Alternatively, teachers may engage in strategy
implementation at a superficial level. Lewis (2019) cautions leaders to be aware of subtle
forms of resistance, so it will be important to interact with team members to assess the progress made and to determine if intervention necessary.
The resources needed for the CSTAP includes time for teachers to learn the
approach to engage in collaborative work. Asserting the potential of value creation during informal conversations, Chia and Holt (2009) maintain that four face to face meetings provide the optimal number of opportunities for team members to develop collegial and effective relationships. To provide teachers with the necessary time, contractual
obligations related to assignable time, resources to provide teacher relief, and any PD costs need to be considered. Furthermore, Hall, Childs-Bown, Cunningham-Morris, Pajardo, and Simeral (2016) assert principals should recognize and utilize the protocols to drive PLCs because of their high impact on building team member capacity and focus on student learning; however, they recommend teachers choose which protocol they wish to use. Therefore, it may be necessary to present the CSTAP protocol as a temporary strategy to foster agile, collaborative short-term action plans and adjust it as necessary to address teacher challenges with it.
Solution 3: Digital school portfolio. A digital school portfolio could be created