Keeping Teams Positive, Perceptive, and Productive: Five Leadership Practices That Build Sustainable, High-Performing Educational Teams

Keeping Teams Positive, Perceptive, and Productive: Five Leadership Practices That Build Sustainable, High-Performing Educational Teams

Listen to a summary and analysis of this Blog on the Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive podcast—now on the Better Education (BE) Podcast Network.

Hosted by popular AI Educators Angela Jones and Davey Johnson, they provide enlightening perspectives on the implications of this Blog for the Education Community.

[CLICK HERE to Listen on Your Favorite Podcast Platform]

(Follow this bi-monthly Podcast to receive automatic e-mail notices with each NEW episode!)

[CLICK HERE to Set Up a Meeting with Howie]

Dear Colleagues,

Introduction: The Long Game of Team Leadership

   At some point in the next decade or two, NASA plans to send astronauts to land and work on Mars. The average distance between Earth and Mars (the next planet closest to us after Venus) is 140 million miles. The trip to Mars will take nine months there and up to three years back.

   The “average” distance and large travel time differences above are because the distance between Earth and Mars constantly changes due their different speeds and elliptical orbits around the sun.

   Thus, NASA is not just designing durable and strategic hardware and software systems to make the trip. It is also researching the pivotal psychological and group process variables and interactions needed to keep the astronaut team living, working, and playing “positively, perceptively, and productively.”

   As Northwestern professor and organizational leadership expert Leslie DeChurch put it in a recent KelloggInsight article (December 1, 2025),

“How can we build one perfect team that can survive and thrive in a small container for that long, in a totally unprecedented scenario where things will go wrong, with no backup plan?”

_ _ _ _ _

When NASA Goes to School

   In districts, schools, and other educational settings, there are different teams that work together in “small containers” (also known as a schools, offices, hallways, pods, or classrooms) for long periods of time (sometimes longer than three years) where “totally unprecedented scenarios occur where things go wrong, with no backup plan.”

   While. . . yes. . . most educators come to school in the morning and leave their “containers” in the afternoon. . . that only exposes them—each day and weekend—to additional outside family, neighborhood, community, state, national, and international stressors that, in turn, affect their work, fellow workers, and workplaces.

   The point here is that educational leaders and those working in different school and schooling teams—just like NASA—must understand and factor in the pivotal psychological and group process variables and interactions needed to keep their different school teams—as above—living, working, and playing “positively, perceptively, and productively.”

   That is the mission of this piece: to integrate the research and practices in this area into a realistic set of recommendations to build and sustain high-performing educational teams.

The Research: Starting a Team is Different that Sustaining a Team

   Every educational leader knows the feeling—that moment in January or February when the collaborative energy that launched the school year has dissipated, when the Professional Learning Community that started with such promise now meets with obligation rather than enthusiasm, and when the leadership team that once buzzed with innovative ideas now trudges through agendas with barely concealed exhaustion.

   The truth that research has confirmed again and again is this: Starting a team is easy; Sustaining a team is leadership.

   Unlike corporate teams that form around discrete projects and then disband, educational teams—whether they're grade-level PLCs, building leadership teams, curriculum committees, or district-level administrative groups—operate on extended timelines. These teams don't just need to work together for a few weeks or months; they need to maintain productivity, cohesion, and collaborative energy across entire school years and often multiple years. The science of what makes these long-duration teams thrive looks surprisingly different from the leadership practices that launch teams successfully.

   Harvard Business School professor J. Richard Hackman spent decades studying team effectiveness across industries, and his research remains foundational to understanding sustained team performance. His research team found that approximately 60% of teams underperform when measured against their potential, and the primary culprit isn't lack of talent or resources—it's the absence of specific structural and leadership supports that become critical over time.

   Hackman's work, synthesized in his seminal book Leading Teams, identified that long-duration teams face three predictable deterioration patterns:

• Motivational Decay. The initial enthusiasm that launched a collective work gradually erodes under the weight of competing demands and accumulated frustrations.
• Coordination Breakdown. As teams move from planning to implementation, the informal coordination that worked early on proves insufficient for sustained execution.
• Knowledge Obsolescence. Teams that don't continuously learn together become increasingly disconnected from evolving best practices and student needs.

   Building directly on Hackman's foundation, educational researchers have confirmed these patterns specifically within school contexts. A multi-year study by Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, and LeMahieu published in Learning to Improve examined why improvement teams in education so often fail to produce lasting change.

   Their analysis of over 200 school improvement initiatives revealed that teams working beyond a single semester showed dramatically different success factors than short-term project teams. Sustained teams required what they called "improvement infrastructure"—ongoing protocols, data routines, and structured learning cycles that prevented the natural drift away from effective, progressive, and meaningful outcomes.

   This distinction matters immensely for educational leaders. The research consistently shows that the leadership practices that launch teams effectively—casting vision, building relationships, establishing norms—are necessary but insufficient for long-term team sustainability. Leaders must shift from initiating to sustaining, and this shift requires a fundamentally different skill set.

The Five Critical Leadership Practices for Sustained Team Effectiveness

Practice 1. It’s All About the Meeting Schedule and Agenda

   One of the most significant findings from organizational research is that high-performing long-duration teams operate best with predictable rhythms rather than episodic meetings. Research from Amabile and Kramer, documented in The Progress Principle, analyzed the daily diary entries from professionals working in teams.

   The finding was unambiguous: Teams that maintained consistent, predictable patterns of when and how they engaged together showed higher productivity and significantly higher psychological well-being than teams with irregular meeting patterns.

   In educational settings, this translates to leaders who establish and fiercely protect consistent collaborative structures. When PLCs meet every Tuesday at 2:15 PM without exception, when the leadership team knows that the first Monday of each month is their strategic planning session, when department chairs count on their biweekly cross-departmental coordination meeting—these predictable rhythms create certainty, momentum, and operational efficiency.

   This occurs best, for example, when districts and schools establish “Master Calendars” at the beginning of each year, locking-in these essential team meeting—while factoring-in holidays and vacations. These meeting days and times become inviolate—and they are still held virtually when, for example, weather conditions physically close a district or school down.

   But here is the critical nuance that is highlighted by this research: The rhythm matters more than the frequency. A team that meets every other week on a completely reliable schedule outperforms a team that meets weekly but with constant schedule disruptions, location changes, or unclear purposes. Educational leaders undermine their teams far more through rhythm disruption than through any other single factor.

   Once again, effective leaders build the team calendar first and protect it relentlessly. When conflicts arise, they ask, "How do we preserve our rhythm?" rather than "Should we just skip this meeting?" Teams that maintain their rhythms through difficult periods emerge stronger, while teams that abandon rhythms during challenges rarely recover their collaborative effectiveness.

   Additionally, within these rhythms, research points to the power of micro-protocols. Wiliam's research on PLCs demonstrates that teams need semi-structured agendas that structure every meeting and make them predicable. For example:

• Set meeting openings that confirm the agenda, the discussions to be carried over from the last meeting, and the new discussions that will be introduced.
• A two-minute segment on "wins since we last met."
• Fixed agenda reports—for example, from budget directors, subcommittee chairs, and/or others.
• Scheduled agenda discussions.
• Unscheduled agenda additions.
• A three-minute "next steps and who's responsible" closing.

   These micro-protocols transform meetings from time spent together to genuine collaborative work. They are not designed to reinforce bureaucracy or control. They are the scaffolding that (a) helps members prepare for each meeting; (b) avoids lengthy and unproductive discussions around “the crisis of the day or week;” (c) prevents long-duration teams from drifting into social gatherings that accomplish little; and (d) discourages the sense that each meeting is an isolated event totally dissociated from the meetings that occurred before.

Practice 2. Make Progress Visible and Celebrated

   Amabile and Kramer's diary study reinforced another striking pattern consistently reported by others: The single most important factor in sustaining team motivation over time is the experience of making meaningful progress.

   Teams that see evidence of their forward movement—even small wins—maintain energy and commitment. This occurs when, for example, teams use visible progress tracking systems that document student learning gains, implementation benchmarks achieved, and problems solved.

   Conversely, teams that work without visible progress markers deteriorate rapidly in both morale and productivity. These teams show significant declines in meeting attendance, participation quality, and—ultimately—student outcomes often by the second year of their existence.

   Educational leaders who excel at sustaining teams understand that progress must be both genuine and visible. This means creating systems where teams can regularly see evidence that their collective work matters. This might include data dashboards that teams update and review together, documentation of "before and after" student work samples, running records of implementation spread, or even simple tracking systems that show how many teachers have tried a new instructional strategy.

   Critically, the research distinguishes between summative and formative progress visibility. Waiting until year-end state test scores arrive provides no motivational value for sustaining teams throughout the year. Instead, effective leaders help teams identify leading indicators—early signs that their work is gaining traction. When a fourth-grade PLC can see that student writing samples in October show improvement over September, that visible progress sustains effort through the more challenging months ahead.

   The celebration component also matters. Research on organizational behavior by Ariely demonstrates that recognition of progress amplifies its motivational impact. Educational leaders who take two minutes in leadership team meetings to explicitly name and celebrate specific progress (for example: "Our literacy team has now successfully implemented guided reading across all six second-grade classrooms, which was our Q1 goal") provide accelerating returns in sustained team commitment.

   There is, however, an important caveat in the research: False celebration undermines team sustainability faster than no celebration at all.

   Teams quickly recognize when leaders celebrate activity rather than outcomes, or when praise feels disconnected from genuine progress. The most effective educational leaders celebrate authentic wins, however small, and help teams distinguish between effort (which deserves acknowledgment) versus progress (which deserves celebration).

Practice 3. Facilitate Productive Conflict and Professional Safety Simultaneously

   Perhaps the most counterintuitive finding in the team research is that high-performing long-duration teams have more conflict, not less. But it is a specific type of conflict that is managed in a specific way.

   Edmondson's groundbreaking research on psychological safety, documented in The Fearless Organization, demonstrates that the most effective teams combine high psychological safety with high standards and honest feedback. These are synergistic, not opposing, forces.

   Psychological safety is a shared, inter-professional team expectation, process, and skill set whereby team members can safely take professional and interpersonal risks. This does not mean that members ignore or avoid issues, challenges, or disagreements, or that everyone interacts with a disingenuous level of “niceness.” Instead, Edmondson's research shows that psychologically safe teams recognize and publicize problems earlier, debate solutions more vigorously, and implement decisions more effectively than teams where members self-censor to preserve artificial harmony.

   In educational contexts, this plays out as district or school teams address the challenging realities of instruction and student learning. For example, a fifth-grade team that has developed a genuine level of psychological safety can have honest conversations about the fact that students have not mastered multi-digit multiplication problems even as everyone has followed the curriculum.

   Or, a district leadership team with psychological safety can address the reality that its equity initiative is producing more debilitating outcomes, rather than fewer.

   These conversations feel risky because they are—but they are essential for data-based problem-solving, real and desired student outcomes, and sustained team effectiveness.

   Conversely, teams that learn to productively discuss and disarm disagreements early on often develop stronger levels of trust and resilience, and experience more team and student problem resolution success over time.

   One of the essential leadership skills facilitating this is the focus on "task conflict" instead of "relationship conflict." Task conflict focuses on ideas, data, analyses, and strategies—the content of the work. Relationship conflict centers on personalities, perceived motives, and interpersonal dynamics. Educational leaders who excel at sustaining teams actively encourage task conflict while immediately discouraging drifts into relationship conflict.

   Pragramatically, this means leaders need explicit and team-discussed protocols for disagreement. For example, using statements like "I see the data differently because..." or "What if we considered an alternative approach..." give team members the prompts to recognize and the tools to de-escalate potential task conflict. Leaders should train and model how to disagree with ideas in meetings while simultaneously affirming the people who suggested them. And critically, leaders must respond positively when team members surface concerns or alternative viewpoints, even when the timing feels inconvenient. Every time a leader dismisses or shows irritation with dissenting input, psychological safety drops measurably.

   The research also notes the importance of resolving, rather than managing. Teams that thoroughly work through disagreements—even when the process feels uncomfortable—reach and implement stronger decisions with greater unity than teams that avoid, gloss over, or prematurely smooth over differences.

Practice 4. Rotate Leadership and Distribute Expertise

   Contrary to traditional models where a single designated leader runs all meetings and drives all decisions, research on long-duration team effectiveness points toward distributed leadership as essential for sustainability. A comprehensive meta-analysis by educational researchers Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond, examining leadership distribution across numerous schools, found that teams with rotating chair people and distributed decision-making authority sustained their productivity significantly longer than traditionally-led teams.

   Indeed, when team members experience different facilitation or leadership roles—even temporarily—they develop a greater understanding of team challenges, a broader perspective on organizational boundaries, and a stronger investment in collaborative outcomes. Moreover, the team—as a unit—becomes more resilient and its members more motivated because effectiveness doesn't depend on a single person's presence, energy, or insight.

   In educational settings, this might look like rotating PLC or committee facilitation among team members on a monthly basis, asking different team members to lead specific strategic initiatives, or having department chairs trade responsibilities for particular projects. The key finding, though, is that the rotation must involve genuine authority, not just administrative tasks. Asking someone to "take notes this week" doesn't create distributed leadership. Instead, asking someone to "facilitate our data analysis and guide us to next steps" does.

   Robinson's work on student-centered leadership demonstrates that educational teams—where different members are acknowledged for different areas of knowledge and expertise—sustain collective efficacy over time better than teams that defer to a single expert. Smart leaders actively leverage this distributed expertise at critical times during a meeting. . . for example, "Jamal, you've had success with this student population—what's your thinking?" or "Maria, your classroom data on this strategy is strongest—can you share your implementation approach?"

   But this distribution must be intentional and scaffolded, particularly early in a team's life where members need explicit training and guidance on the goals, skills, and “look” of effective shared leadership. This process begins with leader-established norms and protocols, transitions to leader-facilitated team-driven interactions, and ends with team members seamlessly taking on expertise-sharing and leadership tasks. Educational leaders who jump too quickly to a fully distributed leadership approach often create confusion; those who never move beyond directive leadership create dependency.

   One caution: Distributed leadership isn't the same as a leaderless team. Even as different members step into leadership roles, someone is still responsible for the team's overall health and progress.

   Research consistently shows that teams with completely flat organizational and leadership structures underperform those with designated leaders (superintendents, supervisors, principals, department chairs) and then rotating leaders as described above.

Practice 5. Invest in Continuous Team Learning and Renewal

   The final critical practice for sustaining long-duration teams comes from organizational learning research. Senge's work on learning organizations, combined with more recent research from Brown on team resilience, shows that teams need structured opportunities for renewal and learning or they stagnate and burn out.

   This operates at two levels. First, teams need to learn new content together continuously. A leadership team that isn't collectively building new knowledge about instructional practices, equity strategies, or organizational development becomes increasingly disconnected from the evolving needs of their school. For example, a PLC that implemented a great strategy two years ago but hasn't learned anything new since has become stagnant. Bryk and colleagues have shown that teams sustaining improvement over multiple years strategically dedicate meaningful collaborative time to learning new practices and frameworks together.

   Educational leaders facilitate this by building learning directly into team rhythms—perhaps one meeting per month focuses on exploring new research, examining practices from other schools, or engaging with expert input. But the learning must connect clearly to the team's work. Generic professional development delivered to the team won't sustain them; learning that directly enables them to address their current challenges and goals will.

   Second, teams need periodic reflection and renewal. Research by corporate team scholar Wageman demonstrates that teams working together over extended periods need structured reflection opportunities—times to step back from the work itself and examine how they are working and making decisions together. Her research shows that teams with quarterly reflection sessions sustain effectiveness significantly longer than teams that never pause to examine their own functioning.

   In educational settings, this might involve a leadership team dedicating the last meeting of each quarter to an analysis of its collaboration processes and outcomes. . . asking, for example: What's working well? Where are we getting stuck? Do our norms still serve us? Are we making the best use of our time together?

   These aren't soft or optional conversations; they're maintenance necessities that prevents breakdown.

   The research also points to the importance of celebrating the completion of important projects or tasks and consciously marking transitions. Educational teams often roll from one initiative to the next without acknowledging what has been accomplished. When a PLC, for example, completes a major curriculum implementation or a leadership team concludes a strategic planning cycle, taking time to acknowledge these accomplishments provides the closure that facilitates the move, commitment, and engagement to the next challenge.

   Finally, long-duration teams need permission and support to advance their practices. What worked in the team's first three months won't necessarily work in month eighteen. Leaders who rigidly maintain initial structures regardless of whether they're still serving the team undermine sustainability. Teams need their leader’s permission to modify, extend, or change their processes as needed. The most effective educational leaders regularly ask teams: "Are these approaches still serving you? What needs to change?"

The Integration Challenge: Leading for the Long Term

   Revisiting the Introduction to this piece, let’s look at the five markers of effective teamwork that NASA has identified as essential to maintaining the cohesion and productivity of its astronaut cohort during the up to three year mission to Mars and back. These markers have been generated by Kellogg School of Management researchers Contractor and DeChurch from Northwestern University who have collected data from Earth-based simulations of long-term spaceflight.

   These analog missions, which have lasted between 30 days and 8 months, subjected “astronauts” to the same social isolation, communication delays, and physical confinement that a real Mars crew would face in space.

   While the language and descriptions identifying the markers is different from the five education team practices above, a close reading shows a high degree of similarities.

   Contractor and DeChurch’s five effective teamwork markers are:

• Shared Cognition: “We Think and Act as One”

The first marker involved the astronaut crew’s need to build and sustain a common understanding of the mission, the environment, and one another’s roles so they can coordinate quickly and accurately.

On a Mars mission, the crew can’t rely on the near-instantaneous support of Mission Control because of the transmission time to get a message from Earth to the spaceship that is so deep in space. So the crew must learn to be both the “hands” and the “brain.”

Contractor and DeChurch’s research found that, as isolated missions continue, crews often get better at executing trained tasks (repairs, equipment control) but worse at conceptual performance—creative problem-solving, noticing emerging problems, and inventing solutions not found in a manual (“brain fog”). From NASA’s perspective, this makes ongoing crew self-regulation of collective thinking essential to stay productive as months pass.

For school teams, the practical lesson is direct: Leaders must do more than schedule collaboration—they must help teams continuously align meaning. That includes how they interpret student data, define the problem they are trying to solve, and agree on what “better” looks like. When shared cognition erodes, people are still in the same meeting, but they’re no longer working from the same map.

_ _ _ _ _

• Team Viability: “Can We Keep Doing This… Together?”

The second marker is team viability—the likelihood that the team will remain capable and willing to work together effectively “again and again and again.” NASA recognized that long confinement—a multi-year mission with no exit strategy—can strain relationships. So beyond expertise, crews must know and sustain their ability to “play well with others”—sustaining relationships, trust, and functional routines under stress.

DeChurch and Contractor’s findings suggested that a key way to preserve team viability is to intentionally pair crew members (including strained pairs) on tasks where they can be successful together, because shared success increases the likelihood that relationship problems will be repaired even when personnel changes are impossible.

In schools, we often treat team strain as an inconvenience. DeChurch and Contractor’s work reframes it as predictable. Leaders who keep teams together normalize the reality that strain happens—and then they actively support what viable teams do differently: they restore working relationships by creating opportunities for successful interdependence, not just more talk about “getting along.”

_ _ _ _ _

• Leadership Dynamics: Clear Authority with Flexible Influence

The third marker focuses on leadership dynamics—how the team uses authority and influence in real time. In high-demand environments, teams need a reliable structure for decision-making and accountability, but they also need the agility to let expertise drive leadership in the moment. DeChurch and Contractor describe this as balancing a formal chain of command with a practical meritocracy: the person with the best knowledge for the task at hand steps forward, and then leadership appropriately shifts as the task changes.

For educational leadership, this is a needed corrective to two common extremes: (a) Over-centralized leadership, where the administrator becomes the bottleneck and the team becomes dependent; and (b) the absence of a “shared leadership” mission where roles are fuzzy, decisions are recycled, and accountability dissolves.

Sustained teams don’t require the leader to do everything; they require the leader to ensure that the right person is leading the right part of the work at the right time—and that the team still functions as one system, not competing subgroups.

_ _ _ _ _

• Task Affect: “This Person Is Easy to Work With”

The fourth “Mar’s Mission” marker involves the everyday emotional signal that a crewmate is easy to work with—a predictor of smoother coordination under pressure. Over a long mission, task affect matters because the crew’s cyclical work (and play) schedule forces repeated interdependence. If working relationships feel consistently workable, the crew can stay positive and cooperative—sharing concerns, asking for help, offering feedback, and recovering from missteps—even as stress accumulates.

In schools, task affect often shows up in small moments: whether colleagues respond to ideas with curiosity or defensiveness; whether questions are framed as learning or as judgment; whether people feel safe enough to say, “I’m stuck,” before the problem becomes visible in student outcomes. Strong task affect doesn’t mean low standards. It means the team’s working relationships make high standards achievable rather than exhausting.

_ _ _ _ _

• Hindrance: Productive Friction—or the Start of a Slow Breakup

The fifth marker is hindrance—the extent to which a teammate is experienced as an obstacle. This is where DeChurch and Contractor’s framework becomes especially helpful for leaders, because hindrance is a reality in every long-term team. Some friction is inevitable. In fact, some friction can be functional: it can force clarity, protect quality, and prevent the team from drifting into complacency. In fact, DeChurch and Contractor found that the balanced combination of task affect and hindrance was the most influential predictor of high team performance overall, implying NASA should aim for crews that can work well together while still tolerating (and using) constructive nitpicking without turning it into corrosive conflict.

But hindrance becomes destructive when it turns into a pattern—when people start anticipating that working together will be frustrating, overly critical, or unproductive. In schools, this is when team members begin to: (a) Avoid discussing hard issues; (b) Keep concerns to themselves until they escalate; (c) Interpret feedback as personal rather than professional; or (d) Split into informal coalitions that fight the same battles meeting after meeting.

School leaders need to understand: Teams don’t fall apart all at once. They often deteriorate slowly through repeated “micro-hindrances” that go unaddressed until collaboration becomes something to endure.

   In summary, the solution that prevents teams from slowly deteriorating is the use of these five teamwork markers that facilitate the long-term positive, perceptive, and productive processes of effective teams:

• Keeping teams aligned on meaning, not just tasks.
• Protecting the team’s long-term capacity to collaborate under stress.
• Preventing communication and decision-making bottlenecks and confusion by balancing authority and expertise.
• Making the daily work of collaboration efficient and human.
• Helping team members to detect and respond to the early warning signs before conflict calcifies into division.

   Ultimately, long-term and sustained team success isn't just about what leaders do; it's about what leaders enable teams to do for themselves. As discussed earlier, the trajectory should move from leader-dependent to increasingly self-sustaining. Initially, the principal or instructional supervisor, for example, might be the one tracking progress, facilitating conflict, and organizing learning. Gradually, however, these functions become embedded in the team's own practices. The team tracks its own progress. Members facilitate their own conflict resolution. And learning becomes a collective expectation rather than a leader-driven activity.

   At this point, the leadership role has shifted from doing to stewarding—maintaining the conditions and structures that enable team self-management while intervening when the team encounters challenges beyond its current capacity.

Call to Action: Your Next Steps

   If you are a district administrator, principal, instructional leader, or school committee chair (or hope to be one soon) who is responsible for team effectiveness, here are your next actionable steps:

   This Week. Audit your current team(s) against these five overlapping practices from the educational and NASA research, respectfully.

   For each team that you lead or support, honestly assess:

• Do we have truly protected, predictable rhythms for our collaborative work?
• Can team members clearly articulate the progress we're making?
• Is productive disagreement happening, or are we maintaining artificial harmony?
• Are leadership and expertise being distributed, or am I the bottleneck?
• When did we last learn something new together or reflect on how we're working?

_ _ _ _ _

   This Month. Choose one team where you'll implement one new practice. Don't try to fix everything everywhere. Select a team where you have influence and a practice where you see the greatest gap. Make it visible—tell the team what you're trying and why the research suggests it matters.

_ _ _ _ _

   This Quarter. Schedule a team reflection conversation using the five overlapping practices from the educational and NASA research as a framework. Ask the team itself where they see strengths and gaps. Collaboratively identify one or two priorities for the next 90 days.

   The research is clear: Teams that participate in diagnosing and addressing their own functioning develop greater ownership and capacity.

_ _ _ _ _

   This Year. Commit to protecting and evolving the structures that research tells us matter.

• When budget cuts threaten PLC time, fight for the rhythm.
• When initiatives pile up, help teams make progress visible rather than adding to the overwhelm.
• When conflict emerges, lean in rather than smooth over.
• When you're tempted to solve everything yourself, distribute instead.

_ _ _ _ _

   Our students deserve educational teams that don't just start strong, but sustain excellence over time. The research-to-practice shows us how.

   Lead as if your teams are on a journey to Mars and back. . . where you are sequestered together for the next three years.

   Take the Throttle. You are In Command.

Our Improving Education Today Podcast is Part of the Better Education (BE) Network of Top Education Podcasts in the U.S.

   Remember that our Podcast . . .

Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive

with popular AI Educators, Davey Johnson and Angela Jones. . . is a full member of the Better Education (BE) Network of the top podcasts in education in the country!

This means that our Podcast is now available not just on Spotify and Apple, but also on Overcast, Pocket Casts, Amazon Music, Castro, Goodpods, Castbox, Podcast Addict, Player FM, Deezer, and YouTube.

Here's how you can sign up to automatically receive each new episode:

LINK HERE: Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on Spotify

LINK HERE: Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on Apple Podcasts

LINK HERE for All Other BE Education Network Platforms: Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive | Podcast on ELEVEN More Podcasts

Twice per month, Davey and Angela summarize and analyze the “real world” implications of our Project ACHIEVE bi-monthly Blog messages—adding their unique perspectives and applications on their relevance to you and our mission to: Improve Education Today.

These Podcasts address such topics as: (a) Changing our Thinking in School Improvement; (b) How to Choose Effective School-Wide Programs and Practices; (c) Students’ Engagement, Behavioral Interactions, and Mental Health; and (d) Improving Multi-Tiered and Special Education Services.

Davey and Angela have also created a Podcast Archive for all of our 2024 Blogs (Volume 2), and the most important 2023 Blogs (Volume 2).

They will continue to add a new Podcast each time a new Project ACHIEVE Blog is published.

Many districts and schools are using the Podcasts in their Leadership Teams and/or PLCs to keep everyone abreast of new issues and research in education, and to stimulate important discussions and decisions regarding the best ways to enhance student, staff, and school outcomes.

If you would like to follow up on today’s Blog or Podcast, contact me to schedule a free one-hour consultation with me and your team.

[CLICK HERE to Set Up a Meeting with Howie]

I hope to hear from you soon.

Best,

Howie

[CLICK HERE to Set Up a Meeting with Howie]

[To listen to a synopsis and analysis of this Blog on the “Improving Education Today: The Deep Dive” podcast on the BE Education Network: CLICK HERE]