No One-Size-Fits-All: The Power of Context in School Improvement 

No One-Size-Fits-All: The Power of Context in School Improvement 

Viviane Robinson states that the number of priorities a school can attend to should be “fluid and contextual”. 

Not only does context inform the number of priorities, and, of course, what those priorities are, it also shapes the possible solutions to these identified thorny problems – or, more specifically, the nuances of these solutions and how they are implemented. 

Persistent problems faced by teachers (Kennedy, 2016) and school leaders (Barker and Rees, 2019) often have much in common, and so too do the solutions they might seek to deploy. The biggest differences tend to emerge not in the broader choice of solution itself but in the smaller, context-driven decisions. 

Teaching and learning provides a useful example. Building shared clarity about what great teaching looks like, and the principles underpinning this enactment, is central to improving classroom practice. Schools have to grapple with some key questions: How do we build the consistency needed to support our students, especially those whose learning is most vulnerable, as they move from lesson to lesson, subject to subject, teacher to teacher – not just over a single day, but across their whole school experience – ensuring alignment not only in pedagogy but in curriculum? And how do we support teachers in securing strong pedagogical foundations while enabling and empowering them to make informed pedagogical decisions for their subject, their classes, their students? 

The right balance must be informed by context. Some schools use scripts or tightly defined approaches to secure consistency, while others have a smaller common core or a solely principles-based approach, perhaps developed through co-construction. Some schools create all their own curriculum materials, whereas others might source these from another trust or provider and engage in preparation and refinement. Each approach has its advantages, and neither is inherently ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Factors such as school size, staff and leadership stability, workload in relation to other priorities, the proportion of teachers working outside their specialism, and the depth of the existing professional knowledge base, all shape our decisions. 

What works well in one setting may not translate effectively to another. A model that’s effective in a small primary with stable staffing might not be as effective in a large secondary with higher turnover – even just down the road. Moreover, context is not fixed – it shifts over time, with changes in staffing, student demographics, external systems, and internal cultures, meaning decisions must evolve too. 

The intangible context 

Up to this point, we’ve focused mainly on the more tangible, structural contextual factors – those that are visible, easier to measure, and often feature in strategic conversations. But there are also less visible, cultural and relational factors that can be just as influential in shaping the contextual decisions that leaders make. 

Staff members’ previous experiences of policy implementation, their subsequent caution or enthusiasm for future change, and the degree to which they feel psychologically safe to take risks or try new approaches, all inform leadership decisions. These factors do not stop leaders from making decisions based on what evidence and experience tell them will work, but they do shape the details of those decisions and how they are implemented. 

Alongside these cultural and relational influences, another less visible contextual factor is where a school is on its improvement journey. This contextual factor shapes both what is possible and what is most needed at any given moment. 

These factors are often invisible to those outside the school, yet they can significantly influence how change is understood, received, and enacted. 

Looking outside teaching and learning 

While words like ‘autonomy’ and ‘agency’ often surface in these debates (particularly around teaching and learning), contextual decision-making goes far beyond these terms. 

In the same way that debates about the centrality of teaching can get heated (and I am not saying that healthy debate is a bad thing) debates about policies linked to school and classroom behaviour can be similarly stimulating. 

Let’s take silent corridors as an example. I would argue that school leaders rarely implement this approach simply because they ‘like’ silent corridors – nor should they reject them purely out of ‘dislike’. Instead, they will have considered what their school, in its current context, needs – what will best support their staff and students. We should avoid assuming decisions are based on ‘preference’; far more often, they reflect a careful consideration of what a school, in its specific and current context, needs. 

The proof is in the pudding 

Ultimately, lagging indicators such as attainment outcomes, attendance data, or staff retention rates help leaders see whether their contextual decisions are having the intended impact. In the meantime, they will be attending closely to leading indicators to guide their evaluation into action cycle – though those outside the school rarely see this picture in full, and each of these leading indicators will be highly specific and dependent on what is being implemented/refined and its intended outcome. 

Context clarified by ambitions 

All schools will have some kind of mission, vision, and values statement. Having clarity around what we want sitting at the root, or heart, of our leadership decisions supports leaders in marrying context (which can shift, even if it’s slightly) with something more solid and stable. At our school, we deliberately chose the phrase ‘Lifelong Learners and Reflective Practitioners’, which encapsulates Dylan Wiliam’s oft-quoted reminder that, “Every teacher needs to improve, not because they are not good enough but because they can be even better.” This helps us shape our thinking in a shifting context. In a different school, different ambitions for professional learning may have been selected, and as a result, the leaders at that school might reasonably make different decisions. 

Let’s finish with one final example. One school may not use whole-school deliberate practice in relation to its teaching and learning policy as part of its CPD model – turnover may be low, new staff supported through a comprehensive induction, and leadership and teachers attend to core routines through a different approach. In another school, with a different context, deliberate practice might absolutely be an appropriate form of CPD (sitting within a broader model) to encapsulate the mechanisms (Sims et al., 2021) that we know support effective staff development. We should avoid casting moralistic judgments on these decisions without enough knowledge of context or impact. 

Contextual decisions and CPD for future leaders 

This notion of contextual decisions also nods to the intricacies and challenges of school leadership – domain knowledge isn’t enough. Subsequently, school leaders need to consider the CPD they are providing for future school leaders. If we consider our responsibilities to the sector more broadly, we must ensure future leaders are equipped to lead within their current schools and trusts – and beyond. This flexibility can only be enabled through broader and deeper knowledge, in turn enabling greater evaluative clarity and better-informed decision-making. As we have seen, contexts shift – preparing flexible leaders both serves the sector and supports current schools. 

Returning to Viviane Robinson 

All of this brings us back to Viviane Robinson’s reminder that the number of priorities a school can attend to should be “fluid and contextual”. 

Some schools may have multiple priorities – I don’t think we can say, “too many, too loose” without knowing the context. 

Some schools may have fewer priorities – I don’t think we can say, “too few, too ‘central’” without knowing the context. 

Again, school leaders need to do what is right for their setting. And leaders and teachers also choose which schools or trusts to work in based on how contextual decisions align with their own professional wants and needs. 

It’s about the staff and students we serve, and the many contextual features which sit within this. Recognising this is not an excuse for poor practice – it’s a vital part of understanding why different schools make different choices. To reduce complex, context-driven decisions to moral judgments will hamper collaboration in the sector. This is why the most meaningful and sustainable improvements are often found not in the solutions themselves but in the context-driven decisions that shape how those solutions are implemented. 

References 

Barker, J. and Rees, C. (2019) Finding the Purpose for Expert School Leadership. Ambition Institute. Available at: https://www.ambition.org.uk (Accessed: 8 October 2025). 

Kennedy, M. (2016) Parsing the Practice of Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), pp. 6–17. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.1177/0022487115614617 

Lovell, O. (2021) ERRR #028. Viviane Robinson on Reducing Change to Increase Improvement. Available at: https://ollielovell.com/errr/errr028-vivianerobinson (Accessed: 8 October 2025). 

Sims, S. et al. (2021) Effective Professional Development: Guidance Report. London: Education Endowment Foundation. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/effective-professional-development (Accessed: 8 October 2025). 

Wiliam, D. (2012) How do we prepare our students for a world we cannot possibly imagine? Keynote speech presented at the SSAT National Conference, ACC Liverpool, UK, 4–5 December 2012. 

Thinking has come from these two blogs I have previously written: 

The importance of ‘contextual scales’* – Love to talk Teaching and Learning 

The importance of ‘contextual scales’ – Part 2 – Love to talk Teaching and Learning