The process began with a focus on Level 1 of the HRS framework, which emphasizes creating a safe, supportive, and collaborative culture. First, surveys were conducted to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

“Once we decided that this was the right work for us and this was the road map we were going to use, we did an audit on what things were going well and what things were not going well,” explained principal Grenda. This data-driven approach helped identify quick wins, boosting staff morale.

During the audit, it was clear that instructional strategies were inconsistent across different classrooms and teachers. To establish more reliable and assessable teaching methods, an instructional framework was introduced, starting with a foundational set of nonnegotiables that their school created as a team and called the “NMSA Way.” This helped build common practices that everyone could agree upon and be held accountable for.

But teachers and administrators weren’t the only ones accountable—students were responsible for their own learning as well, which significantly contributed to their success.

“We were very intentional. … I would introduce strategies every month, not just to the staff but also to the students. We let them know what the focus was each month, and it helped them know what we were looking for and gave them that sense of accountability.”

This approach ensured that students, staff, and parents were all aligned, creating a cohesive and supportive learning environment. Once the staff was more comfortable with these foundational practices, specific strategies from the New Art and Science of Teaching (NASOT) framework were introduced to the staff. This was done through monthly instructional focuses, where one or two NASOT strategies were highlighted.

Principal Grenda emphasized that the elements and strategies outlined were directly tied to student outcomes. The goal was not to evaluate teachers based on whether they performed specific tasks, but to assess how these strategies impacted student learning. This shift in perspective helped to align the staff’s efforts as they began to understand that the purpose of these instructional strategies was to enhance student achievement rather than simply complying with a prescribed set of teaching behaviors.

“The New Art and Science of Teaching framework wasn’t about checking off a list. It was more about helping teachers understand that instructional elements and strategies should be aligned to student outcomes,” explained Grenda.

After some practice, the team successfully developed a common language around instructional strategies, enabling more effective communication and collaboration. This aligned with Level 2 of the HRS framework, which focuses on effective teaching in every classroom.

Both administrative and peer walkthroughs were conducted to observe how teachers were implementing the NASOT strategies in their classrooms. These walkthroughs were approached as learning opportunities rather than evaluations. It allowed them to see the strategies being applied in real time.

Principal Grenda noted that the exchange of positive feedback became a powerful tool, with teachers expressing appreciation and admiration for each other’s techniques. For instance, one teacher might email a colleague to say, “I was really impressed by how you chunked content during your fourth-period class. I’m definitely going to incorporate that into my own teaching.” This kind of interaction not only reinforced the effectiveness of the strategies but also built a collaborative and supportive culture among the staff.