Stop Saying “We Need to Be More Consistent”

There is a moment that happens in a lot of leadership meetings, and once you notice it, you can’t unsee it.

The team has come together, the data has been reviewed, people have shared what they are seeing, and there is a general sense that everyone is aligned. It feels like a productive conversation. And then, as the meeting starts to wrap up, someone says, “We just need to be more consistent.”

Most of the time, people nod. It sounds right. It feels like the right conclusion.

But if you pause and really think about that statement, it raises a more important question, what does “consistent” actually look like in your building?

I was working with a school leader who found herself in that exact place. Her team was meeting regularly, they were bringing data to the table, and on the surface it looked like the structures were there. But when we listened closely to what was happening in those conversations, it became clear that something was missing.

The team could name scores. They could talk about how students were performing overall. What they could not do consistently was identify the specific gap in student understanding, connect that gap directly to the standard, and then make a clear instructional decision based on what they were seeing.

The conversation stayed at a surface level because the process for looking at student work had never been clearly defined.

So we slowed the work down and got specific. We clarified what teachers were expected to bring into the meeting. We defined what they should look for when examining student work. We made it clear what decisions needed to come out of that time together. Then we put a schedule in place so that this work happened consistently across teams.

At first, the difference was noticeable. The conversations became more focused. Teachers were able to name the gap with greater precision, and the connection between student work and instructional decisions became clearer.

Then the reality of the school day set in.

A meeting was moved to accommodate something else. Another priority came up that felt more urgent in the moment. Time that had been set aside for this work started to shift.

As the schedule shifted, the quality of the conversations shifted with it.

That is the part that matters most.

Consistency does not break because people forget what to do. It breaks because something else is allowed to take its place.

When we recognized that, we went back to the original plan. We reset expectations with the team, protected the time, and stayed with the process even when it was inconvenient.

Over time, something changed. The conversations no longer depended on reminders or on who was leading the meeting. The process itself carried the work.

That is when the leader said something that has stayed with me. She said, “For the first time, I feel like we are actually talking about the work, not just around it.”

That is what consistency looks like.

It is not about repeating the same meeting or using the same protocol. It is about whether the work produces the same level of clarity every time the team engages in it.

That only happens when the process is clearly defined and when it is protected.

Without both of those conditions in place, “we need to be more consistent” will continue to show up in conversations without leading to any real change.

As you begin to think about next year, I would encourage you to move away from that phrase and focus on something more concrete.

What should this process look like when it is working well?

What do teachers need to bring, say, and decide every time they engage in it?

And just as important, what are you willing to protect so that the work does not get replaced when something else demands attention?

Next year will not improve because the expectation is stated more often. It will improve when the work is defined clearly enough that your team can carry it forward without needing you to step in and reestablish it each time.