Leading Schools When the Conditions for Change Are Anything but Ideal
There is a phrase often stated in organizations experiencing significant change:
“Once things settle down…”
Once we get through the budget.
Once the new structure is in place.
Once the leadership transition is complete.
Once people adjust to the changes.
Once the vacancies are filled.
Once the political environment becomes less contentious.
Once we finish the strategic plan.
Once everyone understands their new responsibilities.
Then we can really focus on the work.
I understand the sentiment. Leadership during uncertainty is exhausting. People need time to process change. Organizations need opportunities to stabilize. Leaders cannot operate indefinitely as though every day is a crisis.
But I am beginning to wonder whether we are waiting for something that may never come.
What if things don’t settle down?
What if uncertainty is no longer an interruption to the work?
What if uncertainty is simply the environment in which the work must now happen?
Because while adults are waiting for conditions to improve, children are sitting in classrooms right now.
And when their outcomes are unacceptable, waiting becomes a decision too.
There May Be No THIS “After This”
Leadership can create the illusion that there is a calmer season somewhere just ahead.
After this budget cycle.
After this transition.
After this controversy.
After this restructuring.
After this election.
After we fill these positions.
But anyone who has led a complex organization for very long knows what usually happens.
Something else comes.
The budget challenge is followed by a staffing challenge.
The staffing challenge is followed by a transportation problem.
The transportation problem is followed by a political controversy.
The political controversy is followed by another leadership transition.
And somewhere in the middle of all of it, schools are still expected to educate children.
Maybe leadership is not about getting the organization through uncertainty so that the “real work” can begin.
Maybe navigating uncertainty is the real work.
That requires a different leadership mindset.
Instead of asking, When will things become normal again?
We may need to ask:
How do we create clarity when the environment is unclear?
How do we create stability without becoming stagnant?
How do we move people forward without pretending we know everything that comes next?
And most importantly:
How do we improve outcomes for children while everything around the work is changing?
Financial Difficulty Cannot Become Permission for Academic Mediocrity
Many school systems are confronting difficult financial realities.
Revenues have tightened
Enrollment has changed.
Costs have risen.
Programs compete for limited resources.
Positions are scrutinized.
Communities understandably become anxious about what might disappear.
Those decisions are difficult because most school systems are not filled with obviously useless things. Much of what districts spend money on has some value to someone.
The question becomes whether everything that has value has equal priority.
We know it does not.
When resources become scarcer, clarity about what matters most must become sharper.
That means protecting the things closest to the student experience:
Great teaching.
Strong principals.
Literacy.
Rigorous instruction.
Meaningful intervention.
Safe schools.
Belonging.
Opportunity.
And the people and systems that make those things possible.
Financial difficulty may require us to do fewer things.
But it cannot become an excuse to expect less from ourselves for children.
In fact, scarcity should force us to become more disciplined about what actually produces results.
We cannot cut our expectations for children simply because we have to cut our budgets.
Transition Requires Grace—but Not an Abandonment of Accountability
Change is difficult.
New leaders need time to learn.
Employees need time to understand new expectations.
Teams need time to build relationships.
Organizations need time to adjust when responsibilities, structures, or processes change.
Grace must be given.
I believe deeply in giving people room to learn, stumble, ask questions, and grow.
But there is an important distinction we cannot lose.
We can extend grace to people navigating change without extending grace to systems that repeatedly fail children.
Those are not the same things.
Sometimes organizations confuse patience with acceptance.
We know students are not reading well enough—but we need more time.
We know too many students are chronically absent—but we are still studying the problem.
We know achievement gaps persist—but people are tired of change.
We know some students consistently receive fewer opportunities—but changing the structure would be difficult.
At some point, the outcomes themselves have to create urgency.
That does not mean reckless change or change for the sake of change.
It means refusing to allow transition to become a permanent explanation for unacceptable results.
If the Outcomes Are Unacceptable, Something Must Be Allowed to Change
This may be the most uncomfortable part.
Education systems often say they want dramatically different outcomes while simultaneously protecting nearly everything that produced the existing ones.
We want stronger achievement.
But don’t change the schedule.
We want better literacy outcomes.
But don’t change instructional practice.
We want greater opportunity.
But don’t reconsider how students access programs.
We want stronger schools.
But don’t change staffing models.
We want financial sustainability.
But don’t eliminate programs or positions.
We want innovation.
But don’t disrupt familiar routines.
Eventually, we have to confront the contradiction.
We cannot simultaneously describe student outcomes as unacceptable and describe every adult practice, program, structure, position, schedule, and tradition as untouchable.
Something has to be allowed to change.
That does not mean everything old is wrong.
It does not mean every new idea is better.
And it certainly does not mean change for the sake of appearing innovative.
It means outcomes should cause us to interrogate our assumptions.
If what we are doing is not producing what children need, then leadership requires us to ask why—and have enough courage to act on the answer.
People Can Endure Change Better When They Understand Its Purpose
One of the mistakes leaders make during periods of transition is assuming resistance means people simply do not like change.
Sometimes that is true.
Often it is not.
Sometimes people are asking a reasonable question:
Why are we doing this?
Why are we restructuring?
Why is this position changing?
Why is this program ending?
Why are resources moving?
Why are expectations different?
Why now?
Leaders should be able to answer those questions.
And the answer cannot simply be:
Because we have to save money.
Or:
Because leadership changed.
Or:
Because this is the new direction.
Those may explain the circumstances.
They do not explain the purpose.
Eventually, change has to connect to something people can understand:
What will be different for children because we did this?
People can endure a tremendous amount of difficulty when they believe the difficulty is connected to meaningful purpose.
What exhausts organizations is often not change itself.
It is change without coherence.
Initiative after initiative.
Restructuring after restructuring.
Priority after priority.
New language without new practice.
New structures without clearer outcomes.
People begin asking whether anything is actually changing—or whether the organization is simply moving boxes around.
Leadership has to connect the dots.
Uncertainty Requires More Communication, Not Less
There is a temptation during uncertain times to wait until we know everything before communicating anything.
That usually creates a vacuum.
And organizations fill vacuums quickly.
With rumors.
With assumptions.
With fear.
With incomplete information.
Leaders do not have to know everything.
Sometimes the most credible thing we can say is:
“Here is what we know. Here is what we do not know yet. Here is what will not change. And here is when you can expect to hear from us again.”
That is leadership too.
People do not always need certainty from leaders.
Sometimes they need clarity about the uncertainty.
They need honesty.
They need consistency.
They need to understand the principles guiding decisions even when every decision has not yet been made.
And they need to know that someone is still paying attention to the mission while everyone else is understandably focused on the disruption.
Student Outcomes Must Be Allowed to Interrupt Adult Comfort
This may be where leadership becomes hardest.
Because eventually the conversation cannot only be about budgets, structures, politics, transitions, and organizational change.
We have to talk about children.
If significant numbers of students cannot read proficiently…
If students are leaving school unprepared for what comes next…
If opportunity continues to depend too heavily on ZIP code, race, income, disability, or which school a child happens to attend…
If chronic absenteeism is becoming normalized…
If students are disengaged from learning…
If some children experience rigorous instruction while others experience remediation year after year…
Then adult comfort cannot become the primary objective of the organization.
This does not mean adults are not important.
They most certainly are.
We should care deeply about workload, morale, compensation, professional dignity, working conditions, and whether people feel valued.
But caring about adults and demanding better outcomes for children are not competing ideas.
Strong organizations must do both.
And sometimes leadership requires saying:
We care about you deeply—and this still has to change.
Urgency Is Not Chaos
There is another danger.
When leaders recognize the urgency of the moment, they can respond by launching everything.
More initiatives.
More meetings.
More dashboards.
More committees.
More professional development.
More programs.
More priorities.
That is not urgency.
That is activity.
Urgency without discipline becomes chaos.
If everything matters most, nothing does.
Periods of uncertainty actually require leaders to narrow the organization’s focus.
What are the three or four things that absolutely must improve?
What work will we stop doing?
What will we protect regardless of financial pressure?
What evidence will tell us whether things are getting better?
Who owns the work?
What will students experience differently?
And what are we willing to stop doing so people actually have the capacity to do the important work well?
Leadership during uncertainty is not about creating more motion.
It is about creating more clarity.
Leadership Is for This Moment
We often imagine leadership under ideal conditions.
A supportive board.
A stable budget.
A complete leadership team.
Strong community trust.
High employee morale.
Clear political conditions.
Adequate resources.
And enough time.
But those conditions rarely arrive together.
Leadership becomes most consequential precisely when they do not.
When there isn’t enough money.
When people are tired.
When the organization is changing.
When trust is fragile.
When yesterday’s solutions no longer work.
When decisions will be criticized.
When the future is unclear.
And when the outcomes for children tell us that maintaining the status quo may be the easiest—but least responsible—choice available.
Maybe things will settle down.
Maybe the budget will improve.
Maybe the organization will stabilize.
Maybe the political environment will become less contentious.
Maybe everyone will eventually become comfortable with the changes.
I hope so.
But children cannot wait for maybe.
They are sitting in our classrooms now.
They are learning—or not learning—now.
They are becoming readers now.
They are developing—or losing—confidence now.
They are deciding whether school is a place where they belong now.
And the opportunities they will carry into adulthood are being shaped now.
So perhaps the leadership question is no longer:
“When will things finally settle down?”
Perhaps the better question is:
“What does courageous, disciplined, student-centered leadership look like if they don’t?”
Because uncertainty is not permission to postpone the work.
Financial difficulty is not permission to lower expectations.
Transition is not permission to normalize poor outcomes.
Change is not the enemy when the status quo is failing children.
And leadership was never promised ideal conditions.
This may not be the disruption before the work.
This may be the moment the work requires us most.
