Key Takeaways:
-
By May, your school's daily routines have already revealed exactly why this year produced the results it did.
-
Most leaders rush past that evidence and start planning next year from aspiration instead of from what actually happened.
-
Before you set new priorities, study what became routine, what drifted, and what your system actually made possible.
Most school leaders are already planning next year. That's the problem. By May, the system has already told you why this year went the way it did. Most leaders never stop to listen.
It is also the time when I get asked a version of the “What’s next?" question when thinking about School Improvement Goals or for Professional Learning. The easy answer is to tell them which strategy builds on what they did this year, or to go into what I have seen in my walkthroughs.
That is normal. It is also risky.
When we move too quickly into next year’s planning, we can miss the most important leadership opportunity: studying what actually happened.
Before adding another priority, revising another plan, or launching another initiative, we need to pause and ask a more important question:
What did this year teach us about our system?
Not just what the outcome data says. Not just what the end-of-year checklist shows. Not just whether the school met a target.
Because by May, the system has left evidence behind. In fact, this relates to one of the best systems quotes, attributed to Dr. W. Edwards Deming, "Every system is perfectly designed to get the results that it does." That means by spring, your daily routines are telling you exactly why your results look the way they do.
If we don’t take time to review and evaluate the changes within the system, then we will most likely see the same outcomes or repeat the same mistakes. The better reflection question is this: What did our daily practices, routines, supports, and expectations make possible this year?
Why? Because we know that some priorities have become part of daily practice. While others remained dependent on reminders. Some routines created clarity for teachers and students. Others faded when the year became busy. Some expectations were supported through PLCs, coaching, and feedback. Others were announced but never truly embedded.
That evidence matters because it should shape what we do next.
The Initiative Fatigue Cycle in Schools
Every school year teaches leaders something. Schools just don't always stop long enough to learn from it.
Instead, the cycle looks like this: Launch a new priority in August. See early activity in September and October. Watch competing demands rise by November and attention drift. Find mixed implementation by January. Celebrate pockets of success in May. Repeat with a new label in August.
This is how schools end up with initiative fatigue. Not because the ideas are bad, but because the system never paused long enough to understand why implementation was uneven the first time.
Teachers hear a new priority and think, "Are we still doing the thing from last year?" Leaders assume the work has become routine because it was introduced, discussed, or monitored a few times. PLCs touch on the priority, but not consistently enough to change planning or instruction. Walkthroughs collect evidence but don't turn it into next steps.
When that happens, next year's plan becomes disconnected from this year's reality.
The solution isn't to stop planning. It's to study before planning.
Here's what that looks like in practice.
One K-5 school launched Learning Goals in August. By October, Learning Goals were posted in a small corner of every whiteboard, and lesson plans named them. By January, the goals were still in that corner. Teachers hadn't progressed to unpacking them with students or referencing them at the start of a lesson. Students couldn't say what they were learning that day. Walkthroughs noted "LG posted" without feedback on use. In May, the school added "student ownership" as a new goal for next year, without ever fixing the gap between posted and used.
Next year looked new. The underlying system stayed the same.
Why May Is the Best Month for School Leadership Reflection
May is an ideal time for leaders to study the system because the patterns are visible.
At the beginning of the year, everything is still an intention. By midyear, leaders may see early signs of progress or inconsistency. But by May, the school has lived with its priorities long enough to reveal the truth.
The question is not, “Did everyone do it perfectly?”
The better question is, “What patterns can we learn from?”
Leaders can begin with these areas of reflection.
1. What Became Routine, and What Drifted?
Every school has stated priorities. Not every priority becomes routine.
A practice becomes routine when it shows up without constant reminders. In our work with schools, we use a working definition: a practice is routine for an individual teacher when it shows up in roughly three out of four lessons, and it starts to be a school-wide routine when more than half of teachers use it consistentlyit that consistently. Those aren't research thresholds; they're operational benchmarks we've found useful for distinguishing "introduced" from "embedded."
If your school focused on Learning Goals this year, the questions are straightforward. Are Learning Goals consistently clear to students? Do teachers use them to guide questions, assignments, and feedback? Do students understand what they are learning and why? Do PLCs use Learning Goals to discuss evidence of learning?
If the answer is yes, the system supported implementation, and the practice may be ready to deepen. If the answer is inconsistent, the issue probably isn't teacher willingness. It's that the school hasn't yet built the routines, tools, feedback, and shared expectations needed to make the practice stick.
That brings us to drift.
Drift is not failure. Drift is information.
A practice drifts when it starts strong and weakens over time. This usually happens because the system relied too much on launch energy and not enough on reinforcement. A strategy gets introduced in August PD, modeled in the first quarter, and discussed in early PLCs. Then the year gets crowded. Teachers return to familiar habits. Leaders stop naming it. PLC agendas shift. Walkthrough feedback gets vague. By May, the practice is no longer a shared expectation. It's optional.
Leaders should ask: Which priorities faded as the year got busier? What routines stopped happening? Where did implementation depend too much on individual teacher commitment? What supports went missing after the launch?
This kind of reflection prevents leaders from blaming people for problems the system created.
2. What Created Clarity, and What Made Improvement Easier?
Strong systems reduce confusion. When teachers know what matters most, what it should look like in practice, how it connects to student learning, and how they will be supported, implementation becomes likely. When expectations are vague, implementation becomes a guessing game.
May is a good time to ask where the school created clarity and where it created confusion. Did teachers know the instructional priorities for the year? Were those priorities connected to school improvement goals? Did teachers know what the priorities looked like in daily instruction? Did PLCs have tools or protocols that supported the work? Did leaders provide feedback connected to the priorities? Did teachers receive enough examples, modeling, or coaching?
If teachers received mixed messages, too many priorities, or unclear expectations, next year's plan should not begin with more. It should begin with greater clarity.
Then study the bright spots. Leaders often spend time analyzing what didn't work. That matters. But it is just as important to study what did.
Where did teachers improve? Where did students show stronger engagement or deeper thinking? Where did a routine become more consistent? Where did collaboration become more productive?
Then ask the harder question: What made that improvement easier? A clear model? A useful planning tool? A strong PLC conversation? A coaching cycle? A walkthrough focus? A short-cycle goal? A teacher leader who helped others see what was possible?
Improvement rarely happens by accident. When leaders identify the conditions that supported success, they can replicate those conditions more intentionally next year. Don't only ask, "What should we fix?" Ask, "What should we learn from our bright spots?"
3. What Should We Stop, Strengthen, or Simplify?
The most useful end-of-year leadership conversation can be organized around three words: Stop. Strengthen. Simplify.
Stop. What should we stop doing because it is no longer useful, no longer aligned, or creating unnecessary burden? A meeting structure that doesn't lead to action. A data process that collects information but doesn't change instruction. An initiative that competes with the school's most important priorities. Stopping isn't a sign of failure. It's a leadership move toward coherence.
Strengthen. What is worth continuing but needs more support? Some practices are too important to abandon, but not yet consistent enough to assume. They may need clearer expectations, better modeling, stronger PLC structures, or more focused feedback. Strengthening means the work matters enough to support it better.
Simplify. What has become too complicated? Sometimes the right work is buried under too many forms, steps, tools, or competing messages. Teachers understand the purpose but feel overwhelmed by the process. Simplifying doesn't mean lowering expectations. It means making the most important work easier to understand, implement, and sustain.
Stop. Strengthen. Simplify. Three words that turn reflection into a plan.
Plan Your School Improvement Goals From Evidence, Not Aspiration
As leaders prepare for next year, the temptation is to plan from aspiration. Aspiration sounds like:
Next year, we will improve student engagement. Next year, we will strengthen Tier 1 instruction. Next year, we will increase student ownership. Next year, PLCs will focus more deeply on learning.
Those are worthy goals. They're not yet plans.
Evidence-based planning sounds different. It asks: What did we actually learn this year about student engagement? Where was Tier 1 instruction strongest, and what made it strong? What prevented consistency? What did PLCs actually spend time discussing? What support helped teachers change practice, and what support was missing? What needs to be clearer before August than it was last August?
When leaders plan from evidence, next year's work becomes more grounded, more coherent, and more likely to actually change classroom practice.
A 5-Step End-of-Year Reflection Protocol for School Leaders
Before summer planning begins, leadership teams can use this protocol.
Step 1: Name the priority. Choose one major instructional priority from this year. Learning Goals. Effective Questioning. Student engagement. Writing to Learn. Feedback. Vocabulary. Collaborative Pairs. Scaffolding. Tier 1 instruction.
Step 2: Gather light evidence. Cap it at 10 artifacts per priority so the work stays doable in May. Walkthrough notes, PLC agendas, student work samples, assessment trends, coaching notes, teacher reflections, student feedback, lesson plans. The goal isn't a massive report. It's a pattern.
Step 3: Sort the evidence. Use three categories. Consistent: where the practice became routine. Inconsistent: where implementation varied. Unclear: where you need better evidence. If something's unclear, don't guess. Do a 30-60 minute spot check next week, three quick visits or a brief student panel, and then place it in Consistent or Inconsistent.
Step 4: Discuss the system, not the people. Norm the conversation: causes get attributed to systems, not individuals. "We lacked a common tool" rather than "Grade 6 didn't do it." Then ask: What made the practice easier to implement? What made it harder? What supports were most useful? What expectations were unclear? Where did we monitor without supporting? Where did we support without following up?
Step 5: Decide what to Stop, Strengthen, or Simplify. End with action. This is where reflection becomes planning.
The Strongest August Plans Begin in May
The end of the year is busy. It's tempting to finish the checklist, celebrate the wins, close the year, and move on. But May offers something too valuable to ignore: a clear view of how the system actually worked.
Before you plan next year, study this year. Study what became routine. Study what drifted. Study what created clarity. Study what made improvement easier. Study what needs to be stopped, strengthened, or simplified.
The goal isn't to judge the year harshly. It's to learn from it honestly.
Because the strongest plans for next year don't begin with a new initiative.
They begin with a careful look at what this year already taught you.
