I’m thrilled to welcome our first guest to The Eduleadership Show—Principal Justin Johnson of Wahitis Elementary School in Othello, Washington. We discuss:
School-wide instructional systems: Principal Johnson describes comprehensive tier 3 leadership systems implemented since 2014, including standardized lesson components for math (daily entry tasks, problem-solving, fact fluency, conceptual development) and ELA instruction across K-6 grades
Walk-to programs for differentiation: The school operates both “walk to math” and “walk to read” programs where students receive 60-90 minutes of core instruction plus 45 minutes of differentiated small-group instruction daily, utilizing all teachers, paraprofessionals, and support staff to create 11-12 different ability-based groups
Balancing autonomy with alignment: Johnson addresses the tension between teacher autonomy and systematic consistency, emphasizing that constraints serve their high-needs population (50% English language learners, 80-85% low-income students) who benefit from predictable structures and consistent instructional language across grade levels
Collaborative system development: Rather than top-down mandates, systems emerge from teacher input and consensus-building, though Johnson maintains final decision-making authority based on classroom observations and student data; teachers retain individual personality and teaching style while following agreed-upon frameworks
Vertical curriculum alignment: Grades 3-6 follow identical scope and sequence for ELA skills, teaching the same standards simultaneously using grade-appropriate texts, enabling powerful vertical collaboration and ensuring students don’t have to relearn systems each year
Continuous improvement culture: The school maintains constant revision cycles, analyzing multi-year data to identify weaknesses (like struggling with vocabulary targets) and collaboratively developing new strategies; pacing guides and systems undergo regular iterations based on evidence
Implementation strategy and sustainability: The transformation began by studying and adapting successful practices from Gildo Ray Elementary, a demographically similar high-performing school, rather than creating systems from scratch; turnover remains minimal (1-2 teachers annually) with many teachers expressing preference for the collaborative, supportive structure
Leadership philosophy: Johnson emphasizes that not all teacher voices carry equal weight in decision-making—input is valued based on classroom effectiveness and student outcomes rather than seniority or volume, creating what he calls a “meritocracy of ideas”
Full Transcript:
Justin Baeder (00:08):
Welcome everyone to the Eduleadership show. I’m your host Justin Baeder, and I’m honored to welcome to the program principal Justin Johnson. Justin is principal at Wahitis Elementary School in Othello, Washington. Justin, welcome. Thank you for having me. Well, I’m excited to have you as my first ever guest here on the Edgy Leadership Show. We connected last week and you shared with me some of what’s going on in your school that lines up with some things that we’ve been talking about a lot lately here at The Principal Center about tier three systems for learning, and in this tiered systems, not in our RTI model, but I think of tier one leadership as the direct work we do to give feedback on teaching tier two work as the instructional leadership work we do to grow teachers over time and provide coaching. And I think of tier three instructional leadership work as the systems we build. And you had so many great examples of those systems that I thought it would make sense for us to sit down and have you share a little bit if you’re willing to do so. So thanks so much for being
Justin Johnson (01:05):
Here. Yeah, it’s my pleasure. Like I was telling you before, I’m really passionate about this work and excited, excited about it and what we can do for our kids.
Justin Baeder (01:15):
And I should clarify, we didn’t coordinate any of this in advance, so we just connected. You’re not following up on my ideas, we’re just connecting over those ideas. These
Justin Johnson (01:24):
Are things you’ve
Justin Baeder (01:25):
Been doing independently for years.
Justin Johnson (01:27):
Yeah, we started this journey here at W HEDIS probably in 2014 ish, and I’m the third principal in the rotation. At the time when it all started, I was the instructional coach here and our principal that started this whole thing is now our superintendent in our school district. So yeah, it’s evolved quite a bit since the beginning, but it’s been quite the journey for us.
Justin Baeder (01:56):
Yeah, well, lately I’ve been using the acronym CAIRO—curriculum, assessment, instruction, rules, operations. What are some of the key systems that stand out to you as things that make a difference in your school?
Justin Johnson (02:09):
Yeah, I mean, systems is thrown out a lot these days in education creating systems and this that, but to us, when we say that what we mean is we all agree that just at the very foundational level, we’re going to teach ELA in math in a very similar way, and that the components of each lesson are going to be the same, whether it’s kinder all the way up to sixth grade. We are a K six building. And so for example, in math, every day there’s going to be a daily entry task, which is a review piece, and that’s a non-negotiable that everyone will have that. And you’ll see that every day in our lessons, there’s going to be a problem solving piece. We have a system of how do we attack those problems we call, so everybody will have a VEPs problem every day. There will be a fact fluency piece every day in your lesson, and then there’ll be a conceptual development piece, which is obviously the bulk of the lesson, but just at the very foundational level, those components kind of ground us in what that instruction will look like. And then the same thing in ELA, it’s a little bit slightly different ELA, because there’s a much heavier emphasis on foundational reading in the K two bands, but then at the upper three, six more comprehension. And so how we attack each of those pieces is again, our system, what we ground, what we do in, and then we look for ways to get better at each component or each part of those pieces. Everybody we’re talking the same language, we’re using the same things.
Justin Baeder (03:38):
And if I recall correctly, you have a walk to math program where students can go to different math. Talk to us a little bit about the logistics of how that works.
Justin Johnson (03:47):
We have both walk to math and walk to read. And so every student gets core non-negotiable. Our resource room students or if they’re pulled out for speech or at other times if they need to be pulled out for any other, anything else, it’s a non-negotiable that they will not be pulled out during core instruction. So everybody gets third grade, ELA, everybody gets fourth grade, third grade math and so forth. And then walk two time, well, let me back up a second. So in math, the core time is roughly 60 minutes, a little less for our kinders in first. They go a little bit heavier on the walk two portion, but it’s about 60 minutes. And then on the ELA side core is about 90 minutes, give or take a few minutes here and there per grade, and then on top of core instruction than everybody gets what we call walk to.
(04:33):
But it’s really like a tier two instruction for 45 minutes a day, they’ll get walk to math and for 45 minutes a day they’ll get walk to read. And so what we do is we pool all of our paras, our teachers, everybody. So I’m just going to use fourth grade for example, when it’s fourth grade walk to read time, there might be anywhere from four to eight paras depending on the grade level. But in fourth, I think it’s about six, six paras, three teachers, our ELL teacher, we have another position in the building that gets pulled in at that time. And so there’s about 11 or 12 different groups running at that time. And it’s all based on what the individual groups need. So we have a few groups at the top that it’s more extension type activities where they’re really digging into the social studies content, but looking at it from a reading comprehension lens and doing some writing all the way down to, we still have some fourth graders needing more decoding work, and that’s what they’re getting at that time. But that doesn’t come during core. That comes during walk two when it’s really individualized down to what very small groups of kids need. And the same thing goes for math. They get their core and then it’s a walk to math based on what they need or enrichment, how can we really keep pushing the kids that the grade level stuff they’re mastering, how do we continue to push them and not hold them back?
Justin Baeder (05:50):
So anytime there is a coordinated schoolwide effort like that, I think that creates a little bit of an excuse to align on some things that otherwise might be left to the individual teacher’s autonomy. And you have, I would say, a lot of systems in place that some teachers might feel do constrain their autonomy. Take us into your philosophy on that a little bit around autonomy. I feel like in a lot of places, especially Washington State, it is a very strong professional norm that teachers expect to have autonomy. And we’re talking about some real constraints. If we’re going to be aligned on some things, that means I don’t get to just do everything my way.
Justin Johnson (06:26):
Yeah, there’s a couple different things I want to hit on here, but we talk a lot about, again, this system, we’re all agreeing to attack ELA and math in a very similar way. And so with that, having a common scope and sequence, which is the very basis of it, we have to be on the same page. We have to know exactly what we’re teaching when we’re teaching it. And then with walk twos, you have to stick to that pace or your kids are going to go to another room for 45 minutes a day and it’s going to be pretty obvious that you’re two weeks behind or you haven’t taught that yet. And so it holds everybody accountable. So there’s that piece to it. We talk a lot about here that our school is made up of roughly 50% second language learners, second or third, and then about 80, 85% low income from low income backgrounds.
(07:17):
And so the consistency for all kids is extremely important, but for our kids, even more so that we need to be consistent across the board and we need to guarantee that no matter what classroom they go into, they’re getting an incredibly high level of instruction and that they’re getting the standards that they need to be getting at that time. And so we do a lot of that framing of the mindset going into it that it’s not about wanting to make all the teachers robots. It’s not about wanting to just take away autonomy for the sake of taking it away, things like that. But why are we doing it? We’re doing it because it really truly is best for kids. And that gets thrown out a lot too, what’s best for kids? But if we can prove that this is really what they need and why, then it’s hard to argue against it.
(08:01):
And also the teachers do have quite a bit of input into the system itself. There are some things that I’m just from the get go, we have said are non-negotiables. It is a non-negotiable that kids will get daily review every day. In math, you don’t get to pick that, but when we’re designing what that looks like, teachers have input. We’re going to come to a consensus and do it the same way, but it’s constantly, we’re in a constant state of revision. So sometimes that gets a little frustrating for people that it’s never done. It’s never done. So once we’ve learned something and got some information back on it, are we going to continue? Are we going to make it better? Do we need to change something? And so all of the pieces of the system are in that kind of constant flux. But again, it’s the feedback that the teachers are giving as a whole, and then we make decisions.
(08:47):
This is what we’re going to do. And sometimes it comes down to two different groups, think two different things, and it’s as admin, we have to say, well, we’re going to try this one right now, and just like anything, collect information. And if it works, great, let’s keep going. If not, we’re going to fix it. And so I think all that comes together to hopefully answer that question for you that yes, it does take away a little bit of the daily autonomy from teachers, but they do really have a lot of input into the system. It’s just once we agree on something, we agree to do it that way. And then you’ll notice too, and a lot of people say this when they come and visit our building, you’ll see the same lesson being taught across four different sections of a grade, but each teacher has their own flare on that content or their own flare on. We’ve agreed to teach it this way, but everybody has their own personality, and that’s a hundred percent within bounds. We’re not asking you to read a script, stick to it, stand in this corner of the classroom, say, this kid says this. It’s not like that at all. Every teacher has to put their own spin on it, and that’s how we learn from each other. Some people when we go watch, oh, that’s really working, I’m going to try that next too. And so it all kind of comes together to address that.
Justin Baeder (09:57):
Yeah, very well said. I feel like there’s this tendency to characterize anything other than complete autonomy in ways that make whatever it is into some sort of boogeyman that it’s not. And one aspect of that is the idea that the only alternative to autonomy is top down. But when I heard you describing how things go in your school, it didn’t seem really top down. That didn’t seem like the right way to describe it because in a lot of cases, the expectations, the content, the specifics are coming from teachers, and teachers are constantly improving them. It’s not coming from on high, it’s not falling out of the sky tied to a rock. It’s what you have collectively decided as a school. And teachers do have a lot of ownership of it. It’s just that as individuals, nobody is free to say, no, I don’t feel like it. There’s a commitment to everyone else. There’s an obligation to everyone else to be part of that team. Say a little bit more about how teachers see their role in that.
Justin Johnson (10:53):
There’s some people that haven’t liked that process, and that’s okay. Some people have opted out and gone to different buildings. There is a lot of, from the admin perspective, having to massage or get groups of individuals to work together. And that’s a big part of my job actually, is getting all of our grade teams to come together and we’re all human. Some people like each other better. Some people work better together. Some people have different philosophies and whatnot. And so a big portion of this for me is finding ways to massage those relationships and so people feel comfortable to come into a room and say what they think, and we can have tough conversations and then we can walk out and do it. In a perfect world, that’s not part of the equation. You just get ‘em in a room, they all talk, they walk out and they agree, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
(11:43):
And there are some teachers that feel like others have more of a pull than they do and things like that. But on my end, there’s a reason for that. We haven’t talked about it yet, but I’m in classrooms quite a bit and so is our assistant principal. And so if somebody says something and I’ve seen it in their room and it’s really been working, okay, you speak up, let’s go. Let’s go that direction. Whereas others, if I haven’t seen it and you’re saying you’re doing something, but I’ve never seen it happen and whatnot, I’m probably not going to give as much weight to that person. And so it’s, again, I don’t know how to say that nicely, but that’s truly part of the equation to it, that I want to honor everybody in the building. I want to respect that they’re here giving what they have every day.
(12:27):
But to be honest, every voice doesn’t carry the same weight. And it’s not just because of who I like or personal preferences watching the data. I’m watching how the kids interact. I’m hearing what parents come to the office and say about certain segments of a teacher, they feel like their son or daughter isn’t liked in that classroom. I hear what taking all that information into play. And so when the teachers get into a room, I encourage all of them to speak up. Now’s your time. We have to talk. We have to do this. But then when it comes right down to it in the end, sometimes I just have to make a decision. And sometimes people don’t like it, but there’s not always, I can’t always give a hundred percent all the information of why I’m making that. I try to be as transparent as possible, but some of that just doesn’t need to be shared with everyone. But
Justin Baeder (13:15):
The great investor Ray Dalio has and a phrase that I like the meritocracy of ideas, and I don’t know that I like his specific ideas for how to create that meritocracy of ideas. Some of them I don’t think would translate very well into a school environment, but it goes against the idea that everybody’s ideas are equally good. And I think part of the reason that people fear giving up their autonomy is they know that in some cases, their professional judgment is going to save them from bad ideas. They have been exposed to bad ideas before. They have been forced to implement bad ideas, and they’re proud of their professional, rightly so, proud of their professional judgment that allows them to avoid a lot of the mistakes that they’ve seen. So that autonomy, there’s a real value to that autonomy. And I liked what you said about your responsibility as a leader to make sure that if we are all going to do the same thing, it has to be a good thing. It has to be the best thing. We’re not going to do one person’s idea just for the sake of having a round robin or being nice to everybody. If it’s not the best idea,
Justin Johnson (14:16):
Loudest voice doesn’t always win.
Justin Baeder (14:19):
And that’s the other thing that happens is whoever is the most forceful personality tends to get their way. Yeah,
Justin Johnson (14:26):
And I think with it, it’s really always trying to frame it, get the mindset back to a growth mindset that, okay, we’re going to try this. One of the things you can see on my wall here, we say, go hawks. And so I made a big thing of it, and all the little words in there are the sayings we say to each other all the time, and one of them is Today, we’ll do it. Tomorrow we’ll do it better. Or this year we’ll do it. Next year we’ll do it better. And so always trying to get ‘em in that we’re agreeing to this and we’re going to do it, but that doesn’t mean that we’ve written it in stone now that this is exactly the way it’s always going to be. We’re going to give it our best shot. We’re going to see if it really works.
(15:02):
And then again, we’re going to come back to the table. So maybe it wasn’t your exact idea this time that we’re trying, but when we come back, you’re going to have some really good input about how do we do it better next time? And so getting them in that mindset and then also, again, autonomy is great, but that’s a personal thing for you as an adult. And we’re not here to, honestly, we’re not here right now for us. We’re here for the kids. We’re paid to do what’s best by the kids. And I’m not going to ask you to do anything that you’re not morally or ethically comfortable with. But we have to agree to put that away because we’ve seen the evidence of how if we can as adults be very consistent, grade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, it’s really beneficial for our kids. They don’t have to figure out the system. They don’t have to figure out the language. They don’t have to figure out something new every year. It can truly be a continuation on what they’ve already learned and continue building. And so when we get into those hard times where we’re not agreeing, we always have to try to come back to that. Why are we actually doing this? Why are we agreeing to work together so closely? And sometimes it takes a couple days, but we come back. We come back.
Justin Baeder (16:11):
Well, let’s talk about one particular type of alignment, one type of constrained autonomy that is something of a third rail for educators, which is pacing guides or a scope and sequence that says basically, this is exactly what you have to teach and this is the schedule that you have to teach it on. Maybe not down to the minute, maybe not down to the word or it’s not scripted in that way, but it does create expectations for what units you’re going to get to, what you’re going to be on this week. Talk to us about how that works in your school.
Justin Johnson (16:42):
Yeah, that’s another thing that’s in constant state of flux, not day to day, but year to year. I mean, we’re probably on, when it comes to scope and sequence, we’re probably on iteration five, six or seven depending on the grade level in the content area. But one thing that we did that really accelerated the vertical planning for us or vertical collaboration and that whole piece of we’re working together is we went to our grades three through six. They all are on the same scope and sequence for ELA. So we had to get in a room with all 16 of our, well actually it’s only 14 because there’s two sixth grades, but 14 of our teachers. And agree, what do we need to teach? What is the priority? And we can go way down that road too, but how are we going to teach it? What are we going to do?
(17:31):
And then we’re going to lay it out. So that third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, they’re all working on the same skill. Each week we’re using different novels, obviously different Lexis, different vocabulary, all of that is different, but the content itself is the same. And what that allows us to do is then our vertical collaboration during PLC, is it just a grade level? It’s a three six. How are we going to teach inference? How are we going to teach? Main idea, okay, third grade, here’s what you really need to do. Fourth grade, here’s what you need to do. Fifth grade, sixth grade, sixth grade. Here’s what they’ve done for the last three years. Now you can take it the next step. This is the language we’re going to use. This is the graphic organizers we’re going to use and so forth. And so that common scope and sequence really grounds us in that and allows us to do really pretty in-depth vertical collaboration.
(18:19):
And again, that’s where the cohesion comes in. We can’t decide that I’m just going to use this random organizer and teach kids this random chant or gesture or whatever, but the rest of you’re going to do something else. It doesn’t work that way. We all got to come to an agreement and say, this is how we’re going to do it. And it’s not lockstep. I mean, if a team, something happens and whatnot, and they get a couple days behind here and there, there’s a tiny bit of flexibility, but they know they got to stay pretty close to that because we’re going to come back together and we’re going to talk about it. And you don’t want to be the team that’s saying, well, we’re two weeks behind. And so it kind of holds everybody accountable to that. And math is a little different just because of the nature of math.
(19:01):
We do put our scope and sequence together side by side, K 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but it’s not quite as vertically aligned like ELA is, but each team knows what the others are working on. And we’ve done PLC around math as well. So the standards all tightly aligned. So each team’s getting feedback on, Hey, these are the standards from second grade that lead into my third grade standards. How did you teach that concept? Okay, you use this language, you use this place value chart, or this is how you did it, so I’m going to tie that in and now teach third grade standard this way. And so it’s not quite as tight as ELA, but it’s similar and it’s all grounded in it having a really understandable and easily accessible scope and sequence. For the teachers that they got to produce, they had to sit in a room and really hash it out. They had to come up with the reasons for why are we doing what we’re doing. Ultimately, it was up to me and our assistant principal to give the rubber stamp on it, like, okay, we can go that direction. The idea has really come from them.
Justin Baeder (20:02):
And I think that forces decisions about trade-offs and opportunity costs that ultimately we have to make, right? We can’t do everything we want to. We can’t spend an infinite amount of time on everything. We have very real pacing decisions to make, and often teachers resent the imposition of a pacing guide because they know that means I can’t slow down and spend more time on this. If my kids need extra time on it, I have to keep moving forward. But the flip side of that is we get to what we’re supposed to get. There’s an agreement about what we’re going to cover, what we’re going to get to, so that the next year the teacher knows this is what was taught, this is what was not taught, and we can have that kind of alignment. I want to go back to something you said on, well one about math being different, and I think that’s just a great side note that math is different and often we don’t acknowledge how math is different. But you also mentioned in reading that there’s alignment around the skills that are being taught, and that’s kind of built on from year to year, but three through six is teaching the same skill the same week and building on it in different ways. I think one thing you told me in our earlier conversation though is that within a grade level though, there’s alignment on what books are being taught at any given time. Is that right?
Justin Johnson (21:11):
Oh, yes. So for example, on December 1st through the fifth, we were teaching target six. We all agreed on our anchor charts, what they were going to be, how we were going to teach these things. But then each grade level had the autonomy within the grade to choose what text they want to use to teach that at their grade level. So for example, third grade was using chocolate touch and was going to be in chapters nine and 10. Grade four was going to be in James, the giant Peach chapters 26 through 31 Maniac McGee for fifth grade. And then sixth grade was still in Harry Potter. So they were all going to be using grade level text, but teaching that skill through it, so it aligns around that text. And then they can collaborate and they need to be planning what the daily lessons look like within their grade, during their common planning time.
(21:57):
But as a vertical PLC, we were teaching the big ideas around target six and what do the kids need to know and what’s the progression of the instruction going to look like from three to six? And this same thing goes once we hit into informational text. So TCI here means the target for this week is unknown word or phrase, which is target 10. So it’s basically vocabulary. TCI is our science book. So they’ll be on science unit one using that science text to teach unknown word or phrase. Same thing for fourth grade here, fifth grade. And then sixth grade does it ELA slash social studies split. And so in the ELA side, they’re in poetry, but on the social studies side, they’re using their social studies content again to really focus on the unknown word or phrase skill itself. And then what we do too is, I don’t know if you can see it, but just this morning I had to be out of the building.
(22:50):
We had common PLC time, but I asked them, well, let me show you what I’m talking about here. So this was their assignment this morning after committees, I wasn’t here. I was at MMS for a board site visit for some district stuff I have to do. But I told them, are we ready for TCI? And it looks like we were near or below at grade levels last year in Target 10. Is there anything else we can try to think of? Because we’ve been trying lots of different things, but the data shows that it’s really hard to see here, but this is the last four years. In third grade, we were near below, below in fourth grade, below, below, below fifth grade, near, above, below, below. So we haven’t done real well on this target historically. So what are we going to do different? Don’t just tell me this is what we did last year. This is what we’re going to do because it’s not working for our kids. What’s the next thing? So that was their challenge, and they just got done a few minutes ago here, and I got back to the building right before I jumped on with you. So I’m very curious to find out what they’re going to tell me.
Justin Baeder (23:47):
There’s continuous improvement work. There’s looking at data, there’s revising that scope and sequence, and clearly a ton of work goes into that. But it seems like that probably also makes the day-to-day planning easier because a lot of the decisions have already been made. Is that kind of how teachers experience?
Justin Johnson (24:05):
It seems to be how they feel. And then really, so they do that on Monday mornings, kind of the big overarching decisions and whatnot. And then it’s up to them the rest of the week during their common planning with their grade team to take that back and put it into play. What does that mean when we’re teaching TCI this week? What does that mean? What are some things that we could try that next week when we go back and talk that they did seem to work and whatnot, but I was thinking that it might be a good example for you of the, or giving them some autonomy, but it’s as a whole, not as a, each grade level gets to decide on their own. We have to come together and what are some ideas of how we can do this better, but we’re going to come up with them together, not in isolation.
Justin Baeder (24:50):
Just in closing, I want to talk about the impact that this has had on retention, because a lot of people might hear about that constraint on autonomy and think, no, that’s not for me. I want to be left alone to do my own thing. What has been the response in terms of turnover? You said it’s not for a hundred percent of people. How have people voted with their feet in terms of that policy?
Justin Johnson (25:11):
I mean, this past year we didn’t have anybody leave the billing. Each year. It’s maybe one, maybe two. And it’s for various reasons. It’s not always the system itself or the systems themselves that have or people have chosen to leave. Actually, I should rephrase that. We did have one leave this year. We did have one or last year. So I mean, we’re not continually turning over. It’s one or two a year, which seems to be pretty typical for most schools. And so I don’t think it’s a real big issue. What is nice though is that teachers sometimes do kind of feel overwhelmed when they come to us because there’s some expectations with each part of the day exactly how we’re going to teach it. But there’s so much done for them that they don’t have to come up with things on their own. They can really lean on their teams, the other three or four teachers that they’re with to learn from them, and they don’t have to find things and whatnot. And so it’s a double-edged sword. Some people really don’t like it. Others absolutely love it, and they say they would never want to teach anywhere else because they really enjoy this part of it. And so yeah, I guess it’s a give and take.
Justin Baeder (26:17):
Yeah. Well, and it’s certainly about as low as you could expect turnover to be, right? I mean, every school’s going to have turnover just due to life changes. And it’s certainly not. I think what a lot of us fear, which is, Hey, half my staff is going to quit if I hold the line on something. And you certainly have not found that to be the case.
Justin Johnson (26:33):
And I think I would probably fear that too if I was going out and going to tell them, Hey, I don’t know. We’re going to change and we’re not going to do all this stuff we’ve been doing. But it’s got to be really embedded in the inquiry process itself of getting their feedback and really making the staff part of the decision itself and not skirting the responsibilities of making decisions, but making sure you have their input. And when we say we’re doing something, it’s not just me as the principal telling them that they have to do something. It’s the collective saying, this is how we think we’re going to do it. The big thing is they have to buy into the systems itself. The pieces are going to stay the same. And if you don’t agree with those or if you don’t agree with really staying sticking to pacing guide or things like that, that’s where the big difference in philosophy can come in. And I’m not going to lie though. There have been a few times that I go to ‘em and I’m say, Hey, we’re going to try this. Give me some time. But I think I would hope that they trust me at this point that they know that there’s some reason I’m asking ‘em to do it at this point. But I don’t know if I’d start with that strategy from the jump as a brand new principle.
Justin Baeder (27:43):
That’s a really great point. And you said earlier that this work has been developing since 2014, so it’s not like you woke up one morning and imposed this on everyone. It’s really been a building process over more than a decade.
Justin Johnson (27:55):
And the thing that really helped us, I mean, I’m not going to lie, we have to give a ton of credit to the school’s name is Jill Dore Elementary in Auburn. It’s over on the west side by Seattle. And our old principal, who’s, like I said now, our superintendent, he did a bunch of research and found that they have, their demographics of kids was very similar to ours. The languages that they were, it wasn’t Spanish that they were coming to school with, but it was other languages still language learners. Low income was very similar. They had the same amount of paras. I mean, we just went down the list and our schools on paper were very, very similar, but they were just heads and tails above us as far as academic proficiency for their kids. And so we went and learned from them, and this is the system in 2014, when we came back, we just took theirs and said, guys, they’re doing better than us.
(28:45):
We just have to give this a shot. And so we took their stuff and we implemented it, and now our teachers are versed enough in it that we’ve changed it quite a bit to fit us. But what we did at that point was we just laid it out and we said, Hey, what we’re doing isn’t working. These guys have figured out something that does work for our kids. Instead of spending tons of time and energy and this to try to come up with our own system, why don’t we just take that and see if we can give it a go? And so the teachers bought in and we went with it, and like I said, it’s just been in a constant state of revision since then. Love it. Love it. Yeah. I think a big thing for a principal in a seat that wants to try something like this is getting your superintendent or your assistant superintendent of teaching learning or however your district sets it up, getting them on board to give you a little freedom to try.
(29:38):
Because I think we as principals can get really scared too of, well, what if I try something and it doesn’t work? My job’s on the line, I’m going to be out. So if I just tow the line and do what they said, then it’s not my fault if something goes wrong. And so I think really working with the layer above you of here’s why I want to try some different things. Here’s what I want to try. Maybe, like I said, for us it was finding somebody that was doing it and going and visiting and then saying, Hey, this is what it could look like for our kids. Can we, can we give us a year or two to try to figure this out and not feel so much pressure? I think that would be maybe a little bit of my advice to principals that want to try work like this, because there’s going to be times where not everything you try is going to work a hundred percent, and not everybody’s going to be super happy. Some of your teachers might be going to their union saying, Hey, we don’t like this. But if there’s some understanding of why you’re doing it, I think it can take some of that pressure off to at least give it a go.
Justin Baeder (30:37):
Great advice. Great advice. Because anything is hard work before it shows results, and there’s definitely the potential for the pushback to sink a change before you see if it actually had the impact that you wanted it to.
Justin Johnson (30:49):
Yeah, exactly. Exactly.
Justin Baeder (30:51):
Well, Justin Johnson, thank you so much for joining me on the Eduleadership Show. It’s been a privilege.
Justin Johnson (30:56):
Thank you for having me.
