Failure to Launch: Barriers to the Implementation of MTSS

Australian schools continue to experience unprecedented challenges that foster a pervasive ‘business as usual’ fatigue. Continuous adaptation to external expectations, academic performance demands, and student behaviour issues present significant barriers to the pursuit of sustainable change (Scott, 2020). The consequences of failing to meet these demands can be significant, affecting the economic, social, and overall wellbeing of staff, students, and families. This persistent pressure often results in schools being in a state of continuous adjustment and reaction (Bryk et al., 2015). Consequently, education leaders frequently pursue linear solutions and reject those that require more complex implementation processes. This approach makes the sustainable embedding of evidence-based practice in schools particularly challenging (Fullan, 2016). In this commentary, I explore the obstacles to implementing an Integrated Multi-Tiered System of Supports (I-MTSS) (Sailor, 2021). This analysis is framed through the lens of John Kotter’s seminal article, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” published in the Harvard Business Review in 2015 (Kottor, et. al. 2021). Kotter’s insights remain relevant, providing critical perspectives on why many MTSS initiatives struggle or fail to take off.

Despite the significant research base and growing rhetoric from education jurisdictions in Australia to embed MTSS, the translation of this into systemic cultural practice has stalled. I present that we find ourselves in this state of purgatory due to the inadequate homage paid towards the principles of managed change (Trumbach, 2020). These principles are not new. They have been established through the analysis of thousands of organisations efforts to facilitate change. Education writers’ detail that managed change initiatives often fail in education due to a combination of systemic, cultural, and practical barriers that hinder the successful implementation of new initiatives (Reich, 2020; Greany, 2018). Educational systems, deeply rooted in traditional practices and bureaucratic structures, can often be resistant to even incremental change (Wang, 2023, Fullan, 2018). The result, a lack of buy-in from key stakeholders, the watering down and eventual demise of initiatives.

The fundamental aim of change management is to move individuals within a social system from one way of doing and seeing things to another. In other words, to move them from a current state (where a problem may exist or there may be an inefficiency) to a future state that addresses the problem or inefficiency. Implementation science is often embedded within a change management model. Implementation science is concerned with how we may scale evidence. Establishing evidence of an innovation does not necessarily lead to uptake. Less than half of all medical research leads to new treatment of models of care. In the medical field this is due to the outstripping of innovation and practitioners’ ability to absorb the changes (Bauer, 2020). This is not something new. For example, early clinicians in randomised control trials discovered that the eating of citrus cured scurvy in 1601. However, the British Navy did not adopt any policy of supplying citrus to its sailor’s diet until 1995. Studies in education demonstrate an even slower pace of change (Anderson & Jefferson, 2018). This can be partly attributed to the fact that despite innovations (technology, constructivist learning approaches etc) we have not changed the way we learn. However, there has been clear pressure to change what we learn and we deliver learning in order to meet changing economic, employment and more recently wellbeing demands on young people (Masters, 2016; Oaks, et. al. 2018).

1.Failing to establish a sense of urgency

Governmental policy and legislation can create a sense of urgency. I readily draw upon the implementation of change to the identification and funding of students with disability in Australia through the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data for Students with Disability (NCCD). As an Inclusive Education leader guiding schools through this regulatory change, it was evident the alignment of funding to a change process created a sense of urgency among stakeholders. Prior to the implementation of the National Consistent Collection of data for Students with disability (NCCD) the documenting of adjustments for students with disability was resigned to the role of the inclusive education teacher (De Bruin, et. al. 2020; Gallagher et. al. 2021). However, overnight with census dates looming and the potential loss of support staff we were inundated with requests to provide professional learning and close support. Those schools that were early adopters benefited with additional funding (e.g. students with imputed disabilities were included) and those schools who were slow to adopt were provided with immediate feedback in reduced funding. This change did not occur overnight. It was many years until schools and systems were able to embed systemic processes for the identification and recording of adjustments for students with disability. Important, the sustained drive to ensure legislative compliance and adequate funding for students with disability created a sense of urgency across school systems.

Analysis of the implementation of MTSS in Australia suggests a failure to establish a sense of urgency. Despite the pressing number of students with complex need there are limited driving mechanisms that compel education jurisdictions to prioritise MTSS over the many other competing demands. Instead, systems place additional tertiary supports (case managers) and resources (wellbeing funding) to maintain the fragile systems of support in place. There continues to be a siloing of service provision with supports fractured across behaviour, inclusive education, mental health and socio-cultural domains. Presently, there are no school systems in Australia that mandate, incentivise and resource the implementation and continual improvement of an integrated MTSS. Instead, most school systems invite and support schools to embed silo MTSS frameworks for behaviour or learning (e.g. NSW, Victoria, Queensland Department of Education). Whilst there is some funding, the systemic change is still reliant on the good will of school leaders.

2. Lacking a vision

In the wreckage of failed change initiatives, we find countless strategic plans, research projects and programs, but no vision. Without a clear vision, a transformation effort can easily dissolve into a list of confusing and incompatible projects. This can result in the fracturing of the change or lead it nowhere at all (Kotter, et. al. 2021). In the sentiment of the famous social researcher Brené Brown vision is achieved through the articulation of: what would done look like (Brown, 2018). The stalling of MTSS implementation, in my view, can be attributed to the efforts spent conceptualising individual MTSS structures (e.g. PBL, RTI) as opposed to an integrated MTSS framework. Presently there are no tools in Australia that provide a conceptual framework for what an Integrated MTSS (I-MTSS) might look like. I-MTSS are well documented in the USA. The I-MTSS network in the USA provide a detailed conceptualisation and self-assessment implementation rubric (I-MTSS network, 2024).. Australia’s failure to conceptually progress from isolated MTSS structures has resulted in efforts invested in silo projects examining MTSS within specific domains. The proliferation of silo structures each with their own MTSS structure (e.g. PBL, RTI etc) creates change fatigue and provides school staff with the perspective that these frameworks are for students with disability. Thus, no pressing need and no need to change.

An Integrated Multi-Tiered System of Support (I-MTSS) is a comprehensive and equitable prevention framework for improving the outcomes of all students, including students with or at-risk for disabilities, through integrated academic, social emotional and behavioural support (I-MTSS Research Network 2022). Multi- Tiered System of Supports includes both Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Response to Intervention (RTI). It includes all students. It acknowledges that all young people will require social/ emotional and academic support during their education journey (See figure 1) (White, 2023). Some will require more than others. MTSS therefore is an overarching term for transformational school reform that fully integrates academic, behavioural, social, and emotional interventions (Sailor et al., 2021)

Lack of vision has led to confusion of an Integrated MTSS at several points. Australian schools long standing relationship with RTI and Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL) has led to barriers in the evolution of conceptual understandings of MTSS beyond a framework for the identification and allocation of supports for students with behaviour or disability. Driving this confusion has been the umbrella metaphor applied to MTSS. MTSS has been described as an umbrella term for any programs that promote systematic identification and tiered allocation of supports within a data-based decision-making framework (Sailor, et. al. 2021; Pullen et. al. 2018). Confusion lies in schools embedding School Wide Positive Behaviour Supports (Barker, et. al. 2022) or Response to Intervention frameworks (Fuchs, et. al. 2026) frameworks for academic supports independently of each other. An I-MTSS is not domain specific. Instead, it is a general proactive problem-solving model for the allocation of services and support. It entails the synchronising of multiple supports and services across multiple domains (I-MTSS Research Network, 2024).

The consensus from US state-based implementation frameworks documenting an integrated MTSS details a framework containing five distinct components (I-MTSS Network, 2023):

1. The Integrated Continuum of Supports (Tiers) is designed to address both academic (e.g., literacy, numeracy and curriculum engagement) and behavioural (e.g., social, emotional and behavioural development) domains through a systematic approach grounded in research evidence and school and system data. An I-MTSS framework shifts focus from a single domain. Instead, schools and systems have processes for selecting evidence-based practices within each domain and integrate these practices across domains (See figure 1). This integrated approach acknowledges the interconnected nature of students’ academic and social emotional needs, where behaviour influences engagement in learning and quality teaching influences behaviour. Similar to traditional RTI frameworks school and system staff place supports and services along a three-tiered continuum.

Tier 1 clearly documents for all system and school staff universal accepted supports across all academic, behavioural and social emotional domains (e.g. trauma informed practice, attendance, learning, behaviour and mental health). Through a comprehensive screening and progress monitoring system, those identified at risk within one or more domains are provided with Tier 2 supports.

Tier 2 affords targeted interventions, such as small group sessions that are in addition to Tier 1 instruction. For students who have not responded to early intervention at tier 2 or have presented with significant risk (e.g. traumatic experience, complex behaviour need etc.).

Tier 3 involves deeper assessment and the development of an individualised more intensive intervention plan in collaboration with parents and allied health partners.

The Integrated Continuum of Research-Informed Practices acknowledges that all students will require some support along their schooling journey. It ensures that all students receive appropriate supports at the points in time when they are required. It also promotes an interdisciplinary and cross teams’ approach whereby schools and systems work in partnership with parents and allied health practitioners towards shared goals.

• Data-based decision making. Within an I-MTSS, data-based decision making acknowledges the multi-faceted profile of student data beyond individual domains. It features the coordination and synthesises of multiple data sets across multiple domains simultaneously. Schools and systems are required to develop systems that will facilitate the monitoring of all data streams, including academic attendance, wellbeing and behavioural data. This multifaceted approach involves several key processes: (1) using data to guide the selection of evidence-based practices, ensuring the fidelity of implementation of intervention, monitoring student progress and identifying need within specific cohorts (e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students). In accordance with regular analysis, schools and systems will select and adjust their implementation approaches to leverage the benefits for students at each tier and identify those who require further support. Data management systems must be fit for purpose to manage the volume and velocity of student generated data. This entails regular communication by systems administrators with the users of these data management systems. Further, users must be provided with tools to enable schools to simultaneously analyse multiple data streams across domains (e.g. data visualisation tools), thereby informing decisions related to screening, progress monitoring and evaluating the fidelity of interventions within and across all implementation tiers.
• Integrated teams, interdisciplinary collaboration and system supports across each tier are essential to enhance the effectiveness of implementation and decision-making processes. Integrated teams leverage professional knowledge and expertise at a system level (system leaders and specialists), school level (school staff, counsellors and leaders) and community level (families, students, community representatives). A school MTSS team might include classroom teachers, special education staff, wellbeing leaders, Year or House Leaders and counsellors. These may be informed by parent representatives, student representatives, community representatives (e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community leaders) and allied health providers. Team members are selected to ensure engagement across both academic and wellbeing teams. The integrated interdisciplinary teams approach help break down traditional silos that separate academic and behavioural support systems.
• Professional learning to deepen understanding of the I-MTSS. Professional learning is essential in guiding school staff through the change process to effectively implement an I-MTSS. Systems must facilitate continual professional learning that goes beyond one off events. Systems and schools may develop Communities of Practice or provide MTSS coaching to support school staff and leaders. Professional learning entails alignment of a shared vision among system staff and schools. To establish a shared vision, systems and schools undertake an environmental scan against a self-assessment rubric to determine areas where professional learning is most needed. Professional learning is dynamic and is relevant to each member of the system and school community. System leaders and school executive team invests in relevant, engaging, sustained, and integrated professional development, which includes explicit training on implementing specific evidence-based approaches. Professional learning is data driven to ensure it is meeting the needs of the system. A master plan exists whereby activities are monitored and adjusted based on data related to implementation fidelity.
• Continuous improvement cycle. The importance of sustained implementation and progression through to a continual improvement cycle in I-MTSS cannot be overstated. Aligning I-MTSS with schools’ annual improvement goals and performance metrics ensures that these supports are at the foundation of the schools learning and wellbeing framework. To sustained implementation, system and schools must focus on embedding I-MTSS into the culture of the system. At a system level this will entail developing and revising policies to embed I-MTSS. Policies must reflect the shared vision across the system and align with procedures and guidelines that enable implementation and continual improvement. A periodic review cycle of initiatives, committees, and new priorities help ensure that all efforts are aligned with the shared outcomes. These reviews are open and transparent facilitating the identification and resolution of implementation challenges. Implementation may require structural change essential for enhancing, sustaining, and scaling I-MTSS implementation. Systems may need to invest in more advances data management systems and visualisation tools to enable the efficient collection and analysis of data, which is vital for monitoring progress and making informed decisions.

3. Under communicating the policy narrative (or not having one at all)

Implementation will not occur organically. Emanating from the vision must be a clear articulation of the vision through a policy narrative. This must be established nationally, filtering down to both the jurisdiction and school level. Just creating public resources in the absence of a narrative will only go so far. Leaders of the change must regularly communicate the narrative. Communicating the narrative is a fundamental aspect of the inculturation process. The narrative should afford shared understanding across all stakeholders. It should provide a clear roadmap outlining end goals and the stages required to achieve them. The narrative must also make clear the responsibility of each stakeholder. This is challenging in absence of a vision. This clarity reduces confusion and aligns investment of resources towards a common objective, ensuring that all members of the community understand the purpose and goals of the change.

In the Australian context what we need is implementation clarity (Damschroder, 2020). This is critical for aligning disparate efforts and ensuring cohesive progress. Despite both national and jurisdictional rhetoric detailing recommendations for the implementation of MTSS there is no narrative communicating a vision for an integrated MTSS. Instead, a review of online materials posted by the Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) provide guidance and illustrations of practice for literacy, numeracy and wellbeing (AERO, 2024a, 2024b). There is no denying this information is not useful. School staff must know the components of a literacy and numerary MTSS, but this needs to be positioned within an encompassing I-MTSS narrative. An academic MTSS may support learners but learning difficulties may be attributed to mental health and social emotional challenges that would be missed if academic intervention is the only focus. Similarly, on state and territory government websites School Wide Positive Behaviour for Learning is communicated within the siloed MTSS narrative (Queensland Department of Education, 2024). There are elements of effective pedagogy within the universals of PBL. However, a focus on behaviour may miss students who are not being afforded appropriate acceleration or adjustments for learning. A well-communicated narrative ensures that governments, education jurisdictions and school communities are working towards the same objectives, reducing duplication of resources and ensuring cohesive efforts. This is crucial in the successful implementation of I-MTSS. Success relies on the synchronisation of many different departments and support structures. A regular clearly communicated narrative helps align strategies, processes, and actions nationally, across jurisdictions and schools, creating a unified approach towards the provision of support for all young people.

Communicating a transparent and compelling narrative should inspire and motivate individuals, fostering a sense of shared purpose and urgency. A transparent narrative builds trust across systems and school communities, as they understand the reasons behind the change and see a clear roadmap, resourcing and supports for them to achieve the change. This transparency reduces resistance and encourages constructive engagement with the change process. Motivation and buy-in are critical for the success of any change initiative. When system and school staff understand and can internalise the narrative in line with their professional role, they are more likely to support and commit to the change. Politicians, System leaders, teachers, families and students must see that efforts will bring about efficiency, reducing workload and benefit all members of a school community, not just those students with disability. Alignment and cohesion are achieved through the consistent and transparent communication of the narrative.

Change initiatives often encounter challenges and setbacks. We cannot gloss over the immense pressure education systems, schools and teachers are under (Frey, 2023). Consistent and regular communication through a clear narrative also serves as a guiding star for decision-making throughout the implementation process. This guidance helps align policies, funding decisions and support structures. This supports sustained inculturation of the change through clear sense of process and purpose. Embedding the vision into system strategic plans, annual school improvement goals and key performance indicators helps create a culture of continuous improvement and data-driven decision-making, ensuring ongoing progress and adaptation. Ultimately, this focus keeps people resilient in the face of obstacles.

4. Not removing obstacles to the new vision

There is an instinctive tendency across education Systems to resist change when faced with existential challenges (e.g. staff shortages, increasing student mental health needs, falling attendance) (Fullan 1993, Hargreaves, 2004). This may be attributed to concern that change in a climate of challenge will add additional workload and impede the efforts to maintain the equilibrium of educating and supporting the wellbeing of young people. There is no denying, education Systems in Australia and around the world continue to experience unprecedented challenge. Staff shortages, and general workload fatigue inhibit schools to envision anything beyond a state of business as usual. However, school Systems have long experienced a wave of constant change as they adapt to meet both internal and external pressures (e.g. social expectations, academic results, mental health, student behaviour). It is evident that some schools remain buoyant and ride the wave whilst others continually expend effort to catch up. Unfortunately, the traditional organisational structure of education systems can undermine efforts to invest resources and efforts that may bring about efficiencies or improvements. No school system in the world has the power to remove all obstacles to quality and efficient learning and wellbeing supports. However, these obstacles must be acknowledged, confronted and addressed.

Too often, an employee understands the new vision and wants to help make it happen. But an elephant appears to be blocking the path. In some cases, the elephant is in the person’s head, and the challenge is to convince the individual that no external obstacle exists. But in most cases, the blockers are very real. (Kotter et. al. 2021)

Following is a brief discussion of obstacles across Australian education systems that impede implementation of an I-MTSS.

A significant barrier is school staffing shortages and the crippling effect of increased workload. This inevitably contributes to burnout and further resistance to change. Unsustainable workload and stress levels among teachers and school leaders present as real barriers to change. The pressing demands of existing responsibilities leave little room for the additional tasks associated with new initiatives. This can lead to change scepticism, a lack of engagement and a reduced capacity to implement change. There is no easy fix for addressing teacher shortages. However, an I-MTSS may offset areas that contribute towards increased workload and teacher attrition. For example, significant energy is invested in supporting students with increasingly complex mental health profiles and associated behaviour is frequently cited as one reasons for teacher attrition. An I-MTSS framework builds behaviour supports along with social emotional learning, affording appropriate adjustments students need to engage in learning.

Fragmented efforts and a lack of coordination among various initiatives and programs often result in siloed projects that fail to align with the pressures or goals of the school or even system. This can lead to resistance to change among teachers, school leaders, and other staff members. This reluctance can stem from a variety of sources, including comfort with established practices, roles aligned with specific approaches (e.g. Reading Recovery aligned with RTI), fear of the unknown, and a perceived lack of efficacy in new methods. School leaders are well versed at supporting their staff in weathering fragmented change efforts. At a system level there must be acknowledgment that mistrust is another significant barrier. Without the trust and buy-in from key stakeholders, including principals, school staff, and the wider community, change efforts are unlikely to succeed.

Inconsistent implementation across different schools and classrooms further complicates the process, leading to variability in outcomes and a lack of coherence in the change initiative. Cultural resistance also plays a role. Schools negative experience of fragmented efforts and initiative overload learn to resist change and protect deeply ingrained norms and practices. This can be difficult to shift, particularly in schools that have long standing learning and wellbeing structures. Therefore, it is critical that a strategic change process be implemented to secure school buy in.

Underfunding a change initiative restricts the availability of release and training necessary for effective change. Unfortunately, professional development opportunities are often limited and disconnected, leaving teachers ill-prepared both in understanding and time to implement changes successfully. For change to be effective, schools need resourcing, ongoing training, time to collaborate and support to adapt to the proposed new practices. To illustrate, I was fortunate to lead within a school system that sought to embed a gifted education framework within its schools. Funding was made available to schools to appoint change leaders that could support the change. There was a clear rubric developed to guide schools as to what being accredited looked like. There was system coaching and an online professional learning package to support the schools and principal. There were regular meetings with the school change leaders to ensure the narrative remained clear. The program was also incentivised with schools badging themselves as a gifted education supportive school.

Inequities in resources pose another significant challenge, particularly between metro and rural schools or high- and low-socio-economic catchments. These disparities can lead to unequal opportunities for implementing and benefiting from new initiatives. Further, inadequate infrastructure, such as outdated facilities and data management systems, can severely limit the ability to implement new systems effectively. Even with a clear vision, understanding and supportive leadership change will not be embedded if school staff do not have access to the tools to make it happen. For example, some time ago I was present at a statewide attendance network. My system had the luxury of a data analytics department that was able to synthesis our attendance data into useable data analytical dashboards. This enabled the accurate determination of attendance levels and rates across out schools. However, we were unique with most other jurisdictions within the state unable to access advanced data analytics beyond a single report for census.

5. Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition

Change is near impossible without the active support of a sponsor, director or significant leader. It also needs sound sponsorship from leaders in general. However, successful change goes far beyond ratification by an executive team. From personal experience, I was once charged with guiding a team of education learning leaders in a system to implement a student attendance compliance measure in response to recommendations from an external review. Despite widespread agreement at the top regarding the need for an attendance improvement goal to be included within schools’ annual improvement plans, the discussion as to how this would happen was met with resistance before it was even presented to principals. In the end schools were required to demonstrate they were meeting regulatory requirements, yet no measures were implemented to embed attendance improvement within schools’ annual improvement plans. The lesson here was the importance of communicating the change and securing enough of the guiding coalition of senior managers and individuals with influence to secure change.

It would be naive to think that you can immediately secure a powerful coalition to guide change with all influential members on board. There are always going to be groups and leaders who are resistant to change, who differ in strategic perspectives or simply do not understand the change well enough to commit. Instead, forming the guiding coalition takes time and comes about through relationship and trust. Relationships are formed through sustained interactions with key stakeholders who have influence. Trust is earned through openness, humility and delivering on intent. According to Stephen Covey, who developed an entire framework for establishing trust.

A humble person is more concerned about what is right than about being right, about acting on good ideas than about having the ideas, about embracing new truth than defending an outdated position, about building the team than exalting self, about recognizing contribution than being recognized for it. (Covey, 2006)

There is no problem with having opposition to change. However, when we start blaming the opposition for the change failing or worse, we do not acknowledge the position of an opposition then our change efforts will ultimately fail.

6. Declaring victory too soon

Education is political, from the sentiment of voters to the trust school communities and teaching staff place in their principals. The critical responsibility of education leaders to maintain operations means that large scale change carries with it great risk. Instead, short-term projects focused on immediate results to shore up current operations rather than long-term sustainability inhibit large scale change. This is not to say that Australian Governments have not attempted large scale change.

In 2008 the Australian Government, under Kevin Rudd, implemented its Digital Education Revolution. A bold program of change to close the digital divide and bring about a 1:1 computer to every Australian student in Years 9 to 12 by 2012. In New South Wales the project included large scale wireless installations, training and support services for staff and students. Victory was declared at the beginning of 2012. However, by June 2013 the funding would be coming to an end and so would the program. Education Minister at the time Peter Garrett was quoted ”delivered on time and within budget”, with 957,805 computers bought nationally at a cost of $2.4 billion”. The reality however was an education system left in chaos as education leaders scrambled to find ways to maintain the costly program. The program certainly brought about change yet with declaring victory too soon no contingency was built into sustaining the program beyond the short-sighted project timeline.

Effective change leaders, according to Kotter (2015), use the legitimacy that comes with short-term wins to address even more important challenges rather than declaring victory. They focus on systems and structures that were perhaps out of reach when the implementation plan was first developed and are in line with the transformation vision. Effective change leaders have sustainability at the forefront of the change plan. They are

Declaring victory too soon can be a significant barrier to implementing an I-MTSS framework across a school or system of schools. When initial frameworks have been established and gains are made, such as early improvements in student behaviour or academic performance, leaders may prematurely assume that the work is complete. Initial funding and positions to support the change may be removed. This can undermine deeper, systemic changes needed to ensure sustainability and continuous improvement. Continual improvement efforts require sustained culture building over years, not just several months.

7. Not anchoring the change into the organisations culture

Stolp & Smith (1994) describe school culture as the historically and socially transmitted set of deep patterns of meaning including the norms, values, beliefs, ceremonies, rituals, traditions, and myths understood by school leaders, staff, students and the school community. In the words of Peter Drucker – ‘culture will always eat strategy for breakfast’ (Ducker, 2006). If the vision of implementing an I-MTSS is not firmly rooted in culture it will be replaced as soon as the drivers (e.g. funding, leaders etc) are removed.

A few years ago, a school I was working at set strategic priorities to develop a more innovative curriculum experience for students that would equip them with 21^st Century Learning skills. At significant investment, the school hired a motivational program leader who had previously led innovative programs in the US. The approach was that the new program leader would supplant the US innovative model into the well-established secondary school by training and coaching staff in skills deemed necessary for 21^st century learning (i.e. problem-based learning). Everything was progressing well and by Term 2 there was even buy in from the more traditional teachers. However, things started to unravel when the project leader broke his arm and was away for four weeks. Teachers no longer having the project leaders direction returned to comfortable traditional approaches and resources. Even before news filtered that the project leader had taken up a more lucrative role in another education system, the faculty silo structures were re-instated, and the change was forgotten.

Embedding the change necessary to implement an I-MTSS within the school system’s culture is crucial for ensuring its sustainability. Cultural integration ensures that new responsibilities, processes and practices are consistently applied across the system and each school, leading to uniformity in application and decision-making (Martin, 2002). When the new practices and values become part of the organisational identity, they are less susceptible to fading away once initial efforts and enthusiasm wane (Kotter, 1996). Schools do not traditionally present with cultures that embraces change. However, when change initiatives are well planned and supported a climate where continuous improvement is normalised, enabling the system to adapt more readily to future challenges and opportunities (Schein, 2010).

School leaders at the outset must demonstrate a commitment to embedding change within the existing culture. An approach that seeks to acknowledge the existing culture and embed change is appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). Appreciative Inquiry is guided by five stages: Definition, Discovery, Dream, Design, and Destiny. Initially, the Definition stage involves the change team determining the focus and gaining a deep understanding of the desired change. During the Discovery stage, the school community identify and make salient to the change team the best of “what is” by uncovering the system or school’s strengths and core values. In the Dream stage, the school community envision potential futures by imagining “what might be”. This encourages the change team and school staff to engage in innovative and aspirational thinking. The Design phase then maps these dreams into actionable strategies and plans, creating the ideal model of implementation. Finally, the Destiny stage involves implementing the framework and sustaining the momentum through cycles of continual improvement. This approach not only promotes system growth but also improves school engagement and satisfaction by focusing on affirmative topics and shared visions for the future Cooperrider et. al. 2008).