People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.

      —Simon Sinek

      Many of this book’s readers will have had a similar experience to mine—you’ve been in school for the bulk of your life! If I count my years at university as time being in school, I have more than five decades of familiarity with a place called school. This means that many aspects of school feel comfortable, even those that are not effective. Dominique Smith, Douglas Fisher, and Nancy Frey (2015) explain how this familiarity affects our classroom management decisions:

      While our collective hearts as educators are in the right place, we tend to make decisions based on past experience. After all, we began our on-the-job training as teachers when we were five years old. Our beliefs about school, classroom management, and discipline have been shaped by decades of experience, starting in kindergarten. (p. 2)

If you were to list ineffective practices that you have seen during your time connected to schools, what would you put on that list? Would your list include management strategies that involve overt disciplinary routines, humiliation, or sarcasm; structural components such as a specific number or length of courses, start and stop times, or the structure of the school calendar; or grading practices that include zeros, consequential grading, or penalty points? Here is what I am certain about—anything you could identify as ineffective practice in our profession could be filed under a one-word heading: Easy. Educators don’t keep doing these things because they are effective; they do these things because they are easy, and oftentimes despite research that indicates otherwise and may even reveal the ineffectiveness of the practice. Consider education researcher and professor John Hattie’s (2009) research on effect sizes, and in particular those practices that have a low, or negative, effect size, for example.

      Among many ineffective practices identified, Hattie’s (2009) research indicates that the practice of having students repeat a grade is one of a few common practices in education that has a negative impact, a loss of learning, on student outcomes. We don’t use this practice because it works; we use it because it’s an easier accounting practice. We really don’t know what to do with a student who was not successful in all the components of grade 4. It’s not wise to send him or her to grade 5, and we don’t have a grade 4½ program (but we could if we wanted to and were prepared to move beyond what is easy). As another example, consider the school calendar that is still in vogue in most jurisdictions, which was designed for the agrarian cycle. We still subject students to an extended break despite the decreasing percentage of students involved in the agriculture industry (“Shortage of Farmers,” 2014).

      We have 21st century students being taught by 20th century adults using 19th century content on an 18th century calendar. This disconnect needs to be addressed well before we hit the midpoint of the 21st century. We need to push through the easy and get to the hard work in front of us. That’s where our collective success truly lies. We can start by examining how we approach managing learning in our organization.

      Contrary to what some may think of when they hear the phrase managing learning, the idea of managing learning does not imply imposing a restrictive environment, nor does it mean focusing on a power imbalance. Rather, it suggests creating the optimal learning environment that allows every student to experience success regardless of his or her current status, approach, baggage, or disposition. It implies that educators are responsible for organizing a physical space that helps cultivate a supportive and positive emotional space. However, because the traditional model of classroom management is predicated on control, we should not blame teachers when an environment is not conducive to all students’ learning. Most veteran educators can recall a time when many believed that the most learning occurred in the quietest classrooms. Fisher and Frey (2015) recall this, suggesting, “Well-meaning teachers have been told to get their classrooms ‘under control’ by equally well-meaning principals” (p. 13) who believe that controlled classrooms where the adult is “in charge” will result in little misbehavior or disruptions due to students’ fear of consequences or punishment. In reality, if a student wants to be a distruptor or class clown, he or she may challenge this control. This often leads to escalations educators have come to know as power struggles. Let’s be clear; the educator holds the power in all these classroom situations. The only way the student can gain power is if the adult cedes it by engaging in the escalation (an escalation can’t occur with only one participant).

      So how do educators build positive learning environments? The answer is simple—with intentionality, or, in other words, on purpose. My experience in classrooms has proven that having an effective classroom policy (expectations, not rules) and the opportunity for students to learn from their actions (consequence plus instruction) ensure the positive learning environments teachers desire. This often requires a culture shift in a school. In this chapter, we will examine the relationship between culture and structures in a school, reflect on the importance of collective commitments to changing culture, and consider how teams should assess their current reality to make the necessary cultural changes.

Understanding Culture and Structure

      Culture describes the assumptions, beliefs, values, and habits that guide the work of educators within a school. Structure, on the other hand, includes the policies, procedures, rules, and hierarchical relationships that exist within the school. Factors internal to the school may mostly drive culture, while factors external to the school influence structure. Great debate often ensues in schools and districts around which of these matters most for improving student learning outcomes. Some may argue that a strong, consistent structural approach will provide the stability that is a precursor to creating positive learning environments. Others may argue that the culture of the school, the way the adults treat each other and their students, and the consistency of instructional approach will lead to the desired learning environment.

      What is clear is the notion that a school won’t have success implementing structural change if the culture doesn’t believe in change. Education researcher Phillip C. Schlechty (1997) states, “Structural change that is not supported by cultural change will eventually be overwhelmed by the culture, for it is in the culture that organizations find meaning and stability” (p. 136). If the existing culture does not have as an absolute that all students can learn at high levels, it is moot to have dialogue about some of the most effective teaching tools (formative assessment, response to intervention, and collaboration), as they won’t produce the desired results in such a culture. Educational consultant Anthony Muhammad (2018) offers an even starker reality when he suggests:

      Terms like research-based and best practice have been no match for the deeply ingrained disbelief in student ability that cripples many struggling schools. In fact, I have had the opportunity to study several schools where pessimistic faculty members are eager to prove that new strategies or programs aimed at raising student performance do not work in order to justify and solidify their hypothesis that not all students are capable of achieving academic excellence. (p. 24)

      If the prevailing culture devalues some students, clamping down on structure will do nothing to improve the outcomes for those students. This seems straightforward yet remains elusive in many jurisdictions. Muhammad (2018) provides some insight when he states:

      Cultural change is a much more difficult form of change to accomplish…. It takes knowledge of where a school has been, and agreement about where the school should go. It requires an ability to deal with beliefs, policies, and institutions that have been established to buffer educators from change and accountability. It is a tightrope act of major proportion. (p. 25)

      This might lead one to think that the school or district leader should just decide how things ought to be done in a school and enforce this cultural change. However, Bryan Walker, partner and managing director of IDEO, and Sarah A. Soule (2017), professor of organizational behavior, suggest the exact opposite is really what needs to occur:

      Culture