Theories of Change

Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.

William Pollard

• Too many change efforts focus on implementation without explaining WHY they’ll work
• Many Ministry of Education initiatives “land” on schools with no explicit roadmap for implementation
• Successful change depends on developing measurable indicators from the start—not halfway through or at the end
• Educational change efforts need more than good intentions; they need comprehensive planning and execution

---

I’ve been thinking a lot about change and how difficult it can be to achieve the things we plan to do. There are many reasons for this – a number of which I addressed in my recent thought piece titled “Patterns of Reform Failure”. One of the reasons included in that paper is the lack of a Theory of Change (ToC), which has led to me being asked a number of questions about what I mean by that and what examples I could point to – which I propose to do in this post.

You don’t have to look too far to see evidence of the change that is occurring in our education system – everything from curriculum and assessment change at a national level all the way down to changes being introduced at a local school level such as new timetable structures or staffing responsibilities etc. Many of these things begin as well-researched and well-intentioned ideas, but fail because there is insufficient thought given to how they will be executed and why we believe this execution will work.

This is where a theory of change becomes important. At a very fundamental level, a theory of change provides a comprehensive description of how and why a programme or intervention is expected to lead to desired changes or outcomes. Understood in this way, a Theory of Change becomes extremely valuable in evaluation, planning, and driving social change.

Many of our recent Ministry of Education initiatives have lacked this discipline I would contend – despite them having a section devoted to this on their website. A huge amount of effort goes into researching and designing the proposed change, with changes made to relevant policy and resourcing provision – but then it is simply ‘landed’ on schools with an expectation that they will then know what to do with it.

Of course, there is often a professional development component thrown into the mix – but without an explicitly articulated theory of change to guide even this, too much becomes left to chance and it simply becomes the ‘luck of the draw’ as to who you can engage to lead the professional learning in your school, and can result simply in a repetition of old practices rather than the transformational approach that was intended.

I recall the situation back in the mid-2000s, when the ICTPD cluster programme was in full swing. I was involved with CORE Education at the time, and we had a significant contract to provide facilitation across a large number of schools in New Zealand. The contract was highly detailed in terms of the numbers of schools, the hours of delivery and the expected outcomes in terms of changes in teacher knowledge and skill.

Then came a change of minister and a change in emphasis. Suddenly we were required to demonstrate that the money spent on professional development was having an impact on student achievement. Now even to me that sounds like a very acceptable thing to expect from the expenditure of public money.

Despite how sensible and logical the idea seemed in principle, it became a nightmare to deliver on, simply because the contract we had signed focused on the delivery of professional learning to teachers, with measurable change expected in their level of knowledge and skill and how they implemented this in the classroom. What we didn’t have, however, was any line of sight as to how this was impacting student learning, nor how it may or may not have been impacting on student achievement.

Without a theory of change to guide us, the task became almost impossible to deliver on. It wasn’t that the requirement itself was bad – most of us agreed it was desirable. What was missing was any sort of theory about how investing in teacher PD would eventually lead to improvements in learner achievement. Despite many attempts to draw up different forms of intervention logic diagrams etc. it was really too late in the process as that logic or theory of change should have been in place to inform the design of the intervention – i.e. the PD model.

Two kinds of theory

When thinking about a theory of change I need to be clear that there are really two types of theory at play here – and both are important. The first is our theory or theories about how change occurs, and the second is our theory or theories about how our change efforts (or interventions) will deliver on the impact we are seeking to achieve.

We need to be explicit about both of these if we are to be confident about the change we are seeking. Otherwise we end up with, as is so often the case, a lot of assumptions being made that, despite good intentions, end up in confusion and dissatisfaction about outcomes.

Theory 1: How Change Occurs

Developing a theory about how change occurs requires us to focus on the broader context of how change happens in societies, organizations, or individuals, and requires an understanding the complex social, economic, political, and institutional processes underlying change.

There are a number of ways of going about this and I don’t intent to try and make this an exhaustive explanation – rather, just point to some key phases that much of the change literature refers to as being required:

Begin with conducting an environment scan or situation analysis as it is more commonly referred to in the change literature. This involves you to define the problem, its causes, and the context/systems they’re working in.

Next comes the task of creating an intervention logic or outcomes pathway. An outcomes pathway really describes the chain of outcomes that leads to impact, and involves describing how change occurs in a logical sequence, with early outcomes being preconditions for later ones.

Doing this well requires being alert to all of the assumptions that you (and others) may bring to the task. In addition, you should be looking to identify areas of risk that may exist – the things that may interrupt the flow you have designed in your outcomes pathway. A well developed risk management framework will help here.

Theory 2: How to Achieve Impact from Change Efforts

This theory focuses on how organisations or individuals plan to achieve their desired impact through specific interventions or programs. It’s a bit like building a house – the vision for what sort of house you want to build may be translated from an idea in your head to a scale model and drawings provided by an architect – but in order to achieve this you must engage a builder who will then need to develop a plan that involves having the site prepared, getting materials to the site, engaging builders and subcontractors with all the necessary skills and ensuring these people are scheduled to be there for each phase of the work as required.

For many change projects in environments such as education it can be useful to think of the process the other way round, and reverse engineer your desired solutions starting from the impact you are seeking to achieve.

Again, there are books written on this topic with many great examples of how this might work in practice. For the sake of my commentary here I want to suggest three key things that must be a part of this process:

• Define Impact Goals: Start with the long-term goals and work backward to identify necessary preconditions. Just as the architect’s house plan provides a very clear picture of what the result is expected to look like, and how it will function etc., any change in education must begin with a clear picture of the change that is being sought and the ‘end state’ that is desired.
• Logic Model: Begin with the inputs and activities, then identify outputs and outcomes of the initiative. Focus on the sequencing of these things, and the pre-conditions required before some parts of the process can be begun. Your ultimate goal will be to demonstrate the link then to the overall impact(s) you are seeking to achieve.
• Indicators and Measurement: The importance of solid, measurable indicators to evaluate success cannot be underestimated. This must be planned for from the start, considering how data might be gathered through the implementation process to provide evidence of this success at any stage.

To help make sense of this I’m providing a simple outline here of the key elements in a Theory of Change:

I’ve regularly used this simple five stage framework as a start point when working with groups. Two things I find particularly useful: First, the definition of inputs, activities and outputs can be extremely helpful in then creating an action plan, assigning responsibilities and being able to report back on progress to an SLT group for example. Second, the differentiation between outputs, outcomes and impact provides a clear distinction between these things and points to different approaches required when it comes to measuring these things. Consider the following example when considering the introduction of a change in curriculum:

This example illustrates the flow of thinking (the theory) about how the inputs and activities must be designed and implemented in such a way that they are enabling the outcomes and impact that is desired. Without a vision like this any attempt to introduce change will fall short of achieving the impact that is desired. Too often we find ourselves satisfied with measuring the outputs – because they are tangible and observable – and not the outcomes or impact. Listen to the way governments often report on how their policies are being implemented – e.g. the number of lunches provided, the number of schools involved etc, but very little about the quality or nutrition of the meals or measures to demonstrate the improvements in engagement and achievement that follow or the longer term impact on the health and wellbeing of students and society into the future.

Some more examples that may be helpful:

As mentioned earlier, visual aids can help you better understand complex processes and it can be useful to use a diagram or infographic to illustrate the logic models or outcomes pathways. Here are just a few more examples to illustrate this:

• Mountain Metaphor: Visualize the theory of change as a pathway up a mountain, with different routes representing various strategies to reach the desired outcome at the summit as illustrated on this page.
• Linear Formats: Use horizontal, vertical, or snake-shaped diagrams to show the progression from inputs and activities to outcomes and impacts as described on this page. These are particularly useful for straightforward theories.
• McKinsey 7-S Model: This visual framework illustrates the seven interconnected factors influencing an organization: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Style, Skills, and Staff.
• ADKAR Model: Represent the stages of change acceptance visually: Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement.
• Kotter’s Change Management Theory: Create a visual representation of the steps in Kotter’s model, emphasizing the sense of urgency throughout the process.
• Lewin’s Change Management Model: Illustrate the three stages of change: unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.
• Logic Model Components: Develop a graphic that clearly shows the relationships between inputs, activity outputs, participation outputs, and short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes (NB there’s a useful downloadable template available on this site.

It’s not about either or…

A genuinely useful change programme will combine these perspectives to create a more comprehensive approach to change. A successful change process will necessarily align organisational efforts (Theory 2) with broader understanding of change processes (Theory 1).

The most important thing is that this work needs to be done BEFORE the project begins – not half way through or at the end. By clearly articulating what it is you are seeking to achieve, and using a theory of change to identify the ‘line of sight’ between the things you are investing in and the outputs, outcomes and impact you have identified, you are more likely to achieve success.

Too many, well-intentioned projects and programmes (at both school level and nationally) fail to deliver or cease to operate because of this lack of planning. As  Lewis Carroll wrote; “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.” Clarity of intent and purpose needs to be accompanied by clarity around how you’re going to get there and the evidence you’ll be looking for along the way.

Call to Action

To sum up, here are just a couple of suggestions about how the use of a theory of change may help our change efforts at both the school and system level:

For school-based practitioners:
Take charge of your change efforts by developing your own Theory of Change tailored to your school’s unique needs. You can apply this thinking to a wide range of change efforts – not just the big ones. Start by conducting a situation analysis, mapping your outcomes pathway, and identifying risks that could disrupt your goals. Download a template version of the framework illustrated above, or use visual tools like logic models or the mountain metaphor to clarify your vision and communicate it effectively with staff and stakeholders.

For system-level operators:
Ensure that every initiative you design is underpinned by a robust Theory of Change that aligns with how change occurs in educational contexts and how impact will be achieved. Make sure this theory of change is well articulated and understood by those who will be affected through the process – and that it is referenced regularly to ensure progress is being made towards the desired state. Make sure you collaborate with schools and/or provider organisations to co-create intervention logic models that are practical and measurable at every level.

By working in this way we can bridge the gap between well-intentioned ideas and impactful execution—and transform our education system into one where every change effort leads to meaningful outcomes.