Improvement planning is not a document. It’s a discipline.

michaelgreeneducat
May 3
7 min read

Too often, improvement planning is treated as a moment in time. 'The improvement plan has been written.' Box ticked. Document filed. On we go.

Such an approach is understandable, but also deeply flawed. This is because it positions improvement planning as something that can be completed, rather than something that must be continually enacted. In doing so, it reduces what should be a dynamic, evidence-led process into a static artefact.

This is the fundamental shift we need to make: to stop seeing improvement planning as a noun and start treating it as a verb; something ongoing, responsive and rooted in disciplined thinking.

Start with self-evaluation, not action

In my previous blog, I explored how to write evaluatively; moving from surface-level description to sharper, evidence-informed self-evaluation. That matters here because the quality of improvement planning is only ever as strong as the quality of the self-evaluation that underpins it. If we get the diagnosis wrong, no amount of planning will secure the right improvement. In my experience, the issue rarely begins with the plan itself. It begins earlier with self-evaluation.

The strongest improvement work I see, whether in schools or in universities, is grounded in a clear and honest understanding of current performance. Not just how well are we doing, but:

how do we know?
what evidence is informing our view?
where are the inconsistencies or weaknesses?

And most importantly:

why are we not yet where we need to be?

Where this thinking is underdeveloped, improvement planning quickly becomes superficial. Leaders move too quickly to solutions, often bypassing the harder, more forensic work of diagnosis. Yet it is this diagnostic phase that determines whether improvement efforts will succeed or fail.

Diagnose the root cause

A recurring issue in improvement planning is the tendency to address symptoms rather than causes. Take phonics outcomes as an example. If outcomes are below expectation, the instinct is often to act quickly and introduce an intervention, schedule training, purchase new resources etc. But effective leaders pause. They ask:

Where precisely is the breakdown?
Is there inconsistency in assessment?
Are staff confident in subject knowledge?
Is the programme being implemented with fidelity?
Are gaps being identified early enough?

This forensic diagnosis of root cause is critical.

Because actions that are not rooted in a clear understanding of the underlying issue are unlikely to deliver sustained improvement. They may create short-term gains, but they rarely address the problem at its source. In contrast, when the root cause is clearly identified, the subsequent actions become sharper, more targeted and far more likely to lead to meaningful change.

Be clear what a priority actually is

Clarity of thinking also extends to how we define a priority. Not everything is a priority and treating it as such is one of the quickest ways to dilute improvement effort. A genuine priority is characterised by one of two things:

it addresses a clear weakness or deficit
it deliberately moves something from strong to stronger

It isn't:

routine operational work
ticking along
or a collection of loosely connected actions

Once everything becomes a priority, nothing is.

Define duration and line of sight

Another common flaw in improvement planning is the assumption that all priorities operate within the same timeframe (typically an academic year). In reality, improvement is not that uniform. Some priorities may be resolved within six months. Others require sustained attention over 12 months, 18 months or even longer. It is entirely appropriate to have priorities of different durations running concurrently. What matters is that this is deliberately defined from the outset. Leaders need a clear line of sight:

how long will this remain a priority?
what will success look like at the end of that period?
how will we know we have achieved it?

Without this clarity, activity can become disconnected from impact. With it, improvement work remains purposeful and evaluable.

Capacity, sequencing and disciplined focus

Even where priorities are well defined, another challenge emerges: trying to do too much, too quickly. Multiple priorities are launched simultaneously. Actions run in parallel. Leadership attention is stretched thinly across competing demands. This is rarely effective.

Improvement depends not just on intent, but on capacity and capability: time, expertise and leadership bandwidth. Where these are not aligned, even well-conceived plans can falter. This is why effective leaders make deliberate decisions about sequencing. They prioritise the priority:

some priorities begin immediately due to urgency
others are staged to align with capacity
some are dependent on earlier work being secured first

A project-based approach to improvement

It's from these challenges that my approach to Priority Improvement Planning has evolved.

Drawing on experience across schools, multi-academy trusts and higher education, alongside principles rooted in project management, the model treats each priority not as a line in a plan, but as a discrete project. This means:

clear leadership ownership
defined outcomes and success criteria
structured phases of delivery and review
explicit accountability for impact

In many ways, this reflects approaches long established in other sectors but not always applied consistently within education. At the heart of this model is the use of 100-day cycles.

The discipline of 100-day cycles

The rationale for 100-day cycles is simple. Long-term plans often become increasingly vague the further ahead they look. Actions lose precision, timelines become tentative and accountability weakens. Shorter cycles, by contrast, bring clarity and urgency. Each 100-day period focuses on a tightly defined set of actions, anchored by a clear milestone; a tangible indicator that answers the question: are we on track? These milestones act as 'road signs' on the journey towards the overarching goal.

Monitoring, evaluation and the willingness to pivot

Planning alone doesn't drive improvement. What matters is what happens during and after implementation. Throughout each 100-day cycle, structured monitoring takes place; what I describe as Spotlight reviews. These are regular, focused conversations that ask:

are we doing what we said we would do?
are we on track with implementation?
what barriers are emerging?

These reviews are deliberately practical. Their purpose is to surface issues early and enable timely response.

Towards the end of each cycle, a more in-depth Floodlight review takes place. Here, the focus shifts from activity to impact:

what has changed from the starting point?
what evidence demonstrates that change?
which aspects of the problem have been addressed?

This stage requires honesty and flexibility. If the evidence suggests that progress is limited, leaders must be prepared to ask difficult questions:

did we identify the right root cause?
are our actions addressing the real issue?
do we need to adjust our approach?

In other words, effective improvement planning requires the willingness to pivot.

Continuous planning: looking backwards and forwards

The end of each 100-day cycle is not a conclusion. It is a transition point. The next phase of planning is informed by what has been learned, not simply what was originally intended. This creates a continuous cycle of action, evaluation and adaptation. It is a process that looks both backwards and forwards, much like the Roman God Janus, holding reflection and anticipation in balance.

What this looks like in practice

Across my work, this approach has led to a noticeable shift in how improvement planning is enacted. In schools, it has sharpened plans from broad intentions into tightly focused, evidence-led actions. Leaders are better able to connect changes in teaching practice to improvements in pupil outcomes. In university partnerships, particularly where improvement is required at pace, it has strengthened the relationship between intervention, evidence and impact. Progress is demonstrated more clearly and adapted more quickly. In both contexts, structured monitoring has reduced the lag between identifying an issue and acting on it, while governance has a clearer role in assuring progress and impact rather than simply reviewing activity.

From plan to process

If we' re serious about improvement, we need to move beyond the document. A well-written plan is not the goal. The goal is a living, disciplined process that:

starts with forensic self-evaluation
identifies root causes with precision
aligns actions directly to those causes
operates within clearly defined time horizons
and adapts continuously in response to evidence

Improvement planning is not something you complete. It is something you do. It's in that shift, from product to process, that meaningful and sustained improvement is most likely to be found.

So, at its core, effective improvement planning is about discipline. It starts with honest self-evaluation and a forensic understanding of root causes. It requires clarity about what truly matters, how long it will take and what success will look like. It depends on aligning capacity, sequencing effort and maintaining a relentless focus on impact rather than activity. Most importantly, it is not something that can be captured fully in a document. It's a continuous process of planning, doing, checking and adapting; enacted through short, focused cycles, informed by evidence and refined over time. When we shift from seeing improvement planning as a static plan to a living process, we move much closer to securing the kind of sustained, meaningful change that our pupils, students and staff deserve.

You may find it helpful to download the accompanying summary document as a quick reference.

Priority improvement planning glossary of terms

Priority: The key area requiring improvement or development. Focused, intentional and not business as usual.
Root Cause: The underlying systemic issue(s) driving the observed problem. Actions should address this, not the symptom.
Line of Sight: Clarity about the destination; what success looks like, how it will be measured and over what timeframe.
Priority Duration: The length of time a priority is expected to remain in focus (e.g. 6, 12, 18, 24 months).
Milestone: A checkpoint within a 100-day cycle that indicates whether progress is on track.
Action: A specific, time-bound step taken to address the identified root cause.
100-Day Cycle (Sprint): A focused phase of planning, delivery, monitoring and evaluation. Enables precision and responsiveness.
Spotlight Review: Short, regular monitoring during the cycle to check progress, implementation and emerging barriers.
Floodlight Review: End-of-cycle evaluation assessing impact, evidence and next steps across priorities.
Pivot: Adjusting actions or approach in response to evidence that progress is limited or misaligned.
Capacity & Capability: The time, expertise and leadership bandwidth required to successfully implement improvement actions.
Continuous Planning: An ongoing cycle of planning, evaluating and adapting. Not a one-off event.