Digging Deeper for the Root Cause

When conducting a root cause analysis (RCA), the first step is to identify the most significant performance (positive) or identify gaps (negative). Performance gaps occur when a school fails to reach their most important academic goals, whether internal or external (state labeling). Identifying both challenges and opportunities can inform you as to which solution to choose. 

Last year, I worked with a school principal who started with the data facts before conducting an RCA. She identified her strongest teachers and those who struggled as measured by proficiency on the state exam. The question became, why was the data inconsistent across all teachers who used the same Reading program?

The principal’s initial thoughts for the root cause were teachers who did not want to work and plan lessons. She based this possible root cause on her perceptions about those teachers who had poor performance over a couple of years. Since she mentioned lesson planning, we started there. We spot-checked lesson plans at challenging grade levels.

As we compared teacher plans side by side, most plans were almost the same as coworkers on their grade level. Why? Because they planned together. If the teacher plans were similar and there were no behavior management issues in the classroom, it was time to go deeper to identify the underlying reasons for the performance of each grade level. 

Perplexed by this situation, the principal began asking grade-level teams about the student performance at their grade. What she uncovered was a surprise. The teachers planned together to turn in a common lesson plan. In one grade level, a teacher put together all the slides and assignments. There were results only in that classroom. 

What the principal understood was planning was not implementation. Teachers who struggled with results did not know how to implement the program at an appropriate pace. They got through as much of the plan as they could but would get bogged down when students did not understand. In their effort to help with understanding, they wasted time trying to help individual students while other students waited. When asked why this occurred, it was explained that this is how they were taught to support students (training before teaching at this school) and the program had too many components to implement within the given time frame. 

The root cause was not a matter of teachers not wanting to work or plan (a climate issue). It was an issue of training and implementation. It was a lack of understanding by some teachers. As we continued to dig, we uncovered a deeper level. The major training for this school’s program was 4 years ago. For the next 3 years, the back-to-school training given to new teachers about the reading curriculum was fast and during the same week, they learned many other new things. (A 2-day training was crammed into a half day) So, what happens when you are overwhelmed with too much information, you miss something. 

Some teachers who had been there for 3 years still struggled. They understood their data, but they didn’t understand what to do about it. They were teaching the program and trying to implement the lesson plans but missed the program nuances that were designed to help students who struggled. This was not an attitude issue; it was a training issue. 

Another piece of data confirmed this root cause. In a 3-year time frame, this impacted 45% of the teachers. Last year teacher turnover was low, but 3 years ago it was much higher. Over time, the number of teachers who did not receive full program training increased. 

A school leader could spend weeks/months on building school climate and sharing more data, but unless the real root cause of “how to implement the grade level reading plans” was addressed, nothing would change. 

When conducting your RCA, it is important to understand the power of context. Experiences and context that people bring to the data can impact the decisions that they make about the data and root causes. 

Since everyone brings different experiences to the data, their input may help uncover the deeper root cause. When experiences are shared, you must also distinguish between experiences or opinions with data facts. Perceptions about data are not data facts. 

In the school story above, the teachers who were not there for the in-depth program training, 4 years ago (group A), brought a much different lens to data and plan implementation vs. those who knew what to do (group B) to change their student understanding of the reading concepts. Group A's perception was that it was a time management issue with the program because there was too much to do to implement all the components. Group B understood how to manage and prioritize activities within the program. 

• Go deep with RCA. 
• Do not jump to solutions too quickly, when conducting RCA.
• Help your staff face the facts in the data.
• Identify both Positive Root Causes (What’s working) and Negative Root Causes (What’s not working)

Analyzing your data may be your longest step. It is important to identify not only what’s working, but also the reasons why your current solution is not working. Bringing an outside facilitator (whether in district or out of district) can be helpful in moving through this process objectively. They can ask challenging questions and help you identify deep root causes. 

RCA must be conducted on your priority area(s) first. Trying to discuss multiple areas at once will most likely cause confusion and overwhelm your staff. Take time to tackle individual areas and go deep with the data. Prioritize your deepest roots before you search for a solution. 

In my work with schools, I have seen 5 consistent potential root causes when a school is not achieving results. Those 5 areas include school climate and culture, instruction, curriculum, assessment, and organizational structure. 

The next level for Data Steps 2.0 is to go deeper in your RCA by asking the tough questions, the questions for why the results look like they do. What is contributing to your positive results and what is missing from your negative results? Realize that even those teachers who may not be achieving results can bring an insight to the deeper root cause. It is important to include input from all team members. Where there is negative challenging data, small grade-level teams may be a better structure for this conversation. 

In the school scenario above, the staff turnover rate over the past three years has influenced the current outcomes. The solution has now become clear: enhancing training and assessing the new teacher training programs for the school were essential steps. If the principal was unwilling to consider alternative root causes and failed to engage team members in the conversation, negative achievement results may have continued today. Instead, this school is moving closer to achieving its long-term goals. 

If you are looking for support analyzing your data and identifying your root causes, request a FREE consultation call with me. Fill in the Contact Form Link: https://debradurma.com/contact-us 

Type in “Yes” for “Are you Interested in STAR Leadership Data Solutions?” You will receive a follow-up email with the next step to schedule a phone call to discuss your needs and questions.

Are you unhappy with your results or feeling overwhelmed by data? If so, contact me for more information on STAR Leadership School-Student Data Solutions Training. This training will guide you through the 4 data steps and give you a blueprint for achieving results. This training is individualized and tailored to your data, your needs, your staff, your students, and your best route to achieve results.