Laura K Spencer, Ed.D.

Tag: Change Management

  • Adoption Isn’t Impact: The Quiet Failure of Learning Innovation

    Adoption Isn’t Impact: The Quiet Failure of Learning Innovation

    I keep seeing the same pattern across schools, organizations, and learning platforms.

    The tools keep getting better.
    The outcomes… not so much.

    AI is more capable. XR is more immersive. Platforms are more polished than ever. And still, leaders feel it. That quiet, nagging sense that learning isn’t actually working the way it was promised.

    Engagement spikes. Pilots multiply. Dashboards fill up.
    Clarity about impact stays frustratingly out of reach.

    This isn’t a technology problem.
    It’s a design problem.

    Most learning systems were never built to absorb this level of change. New tools get layered onto old structures. Innovation gets bolted onto workflows designed for stability, not adaptability.

    The result is fragmentation.
    Good intentions. Scattered execution.

    I hear versions of this all the time:
    “We’ve adopted the platform.”
    “We’ve rolled out the tool.”

    What’s missing is the harder question:
    What is this actually changing about how people learn, think, and make decisions?

    Adoption is visible.
    Impact is not.

    Impact only shows up when there’s alignment. Between learning strategy, leadership expectations, culture, and the realities of day-to-day work. Without that, even the most advanced tools struggle to matter.

    Another common miss is over-indexing on features instead of purpose.

    Yes, AI can personalize learning paths.
    Yes, XR can simulate environments.
    Yes, analytics can surface patterns.

    None of that answers the real questions:
    What capabilities are we trying to build?
    What skills matter here?
    What should change when the tool is no longer new?

    When those questions go unanswered, technology defaults to efficiency, not meaning.

    I also see responsibility for learning outcomes get diffused. Innovation teams experiment. IT enables. Designers design. Leaders cheer from a distance.

    No one owns coherence.
    No one is accountable for the system as a system.

    Learning doesn’t break down because people aren’t trying.
    It breaks down because no one is tasked with connecting the dots.

    The organizations making real progress look different.

    They slow down before they scale.
    They clarify what learning is for before deciding what to buy.
    They treat technology as a lever, not a strategy.

    Most importantly, they treat learning as a leadership function, not a procurement decision.

    Leaders are involved early. They set priorities. They make tradeoffs. They resist the urge to pilot everything and instead commit to a few things done well.

    Learning stops being something that happens “over there.”
    It becomes part of how the organization thinks and operates.

    This shift isn’t flashy. It doesn’t generate big announcements.
    But it creates durability.

    What’s encouraging is that more leaders are starting to feel this gap. In conversations with superintendents and edtech leaders, I hear the same frustration surfaces again and again.

    Money is being spent.
    Capability isn’t always following.

    There’s a growing recognition that more tools aren’t the answer.

    The path forward isn’t about rejecting technology.
    It’s about designing systems that can actually hold it.

    That means:

    • treating learning as a connected ecosystem, not a collection of initiatives
    • aligning leadership expectations with learning goals
    • designing for judgment, adaptability, and human skill, not just completion and compliance

    When learning is designed this way, technology amplifies it.
    When it isn’t, technology just accelerates confusion.

    The future of learning won’t be decided by the next platform or algorithm.

    It will be decided by whether organizations are willing to do the harder work of design. Clarifying purpose. Creating coherence. Building systems that support how people actually learn and grow.

    The organizations that get this right aren’t chasing better tools.
    They’re designing better systems.

    Everything else follows.

  • Understanding Transitions: What William Bridges Taught Me About Leading Change in Education

    Understanding Transitions: What William Bridges Taught Me About Leading Change in Education

    I just finished reading Managing Transitions by William Bridges, and all I can think is, where was this book five years ago?

    I didn’t even realize I needed it until now. But with every chapter, I found myself reflecting on moments in my past that suddenly made a whole lot more sense. The times I felt out of sync during a leadership change, doubted myself in the midst of a new initiative, or held tightly to familiar routines when everything else was shifting. I thought I was just resistant to change.

    Now I understand I was in transition.

    What is the difference between change and transition?

    Bridges explains that change is external. It’s the new policy, the reorganization, the updated bell schedule. Transition is internal. It’s the emotional process of letting go, wandering through the uncertainty in the middle, and eventually stepping into something new.

    That middle part, which Bridges calls the Neutral Zone, isn’t often talked about. But it’s where many of us live, especially in education. It’s the space where routines unravel and identity feels blurry. I’ve been there more than once, unsure if I was doing something wrong simply because everything felt off.

    I remember as a teacher when our school was modernized. It was supposed to be an upgrade. Bigger rooms, better resources, fresh paint. But I didn’t feel excited. I felt like a stranger in my classroom. Looking back, I wasn’t grieving the building itself. I was mourning the comfort of the familiar, the rhythm we had built, and the sense of belonging that came with it. At the time, I called it stress. Now I know it was transition.

    Why this matters for educators and school leaders

    One of the most powerful insights in the book is that people don’t resist change because they’re stuck. They resist because they haven’t had the chance to let go. They haven’t grieved what they’re leaving behind.

    In education, we’re often celebrated for our flexibility and resilience. We move fast. We make it work. But too often, we skip over the emotional work of transitioning. We jump from one initiative to the next without taking a breath. Without asking what we need to release.

    Bridges reminded me that real resilience isn’t about powering through. It’s about moving with intention. Letting go with grace. Approaching the new with clarity, even when it’s uncomfortable. (And even if I want to scream into my pillow!)

    How I’ve experienced the Neutral Zone

    I see now how often I’ve lived in that uncertain space. Not ready to let go of the old, not sure how to embrace the new. Whether it was a leadership change, a a procedure shift, or a redefinition of my own role, I wasn’t just adapting. I was transitioning.

    This book gave me the language to name those experiences. It helped me understand why those moments felt so heavy, even when the changes were objectively positive.

    If you are leading through change or simply trying to find your way in something unfamiliar, maybe you’re not stuck. Maybe you’re in transition. And that is not a flaw. That is being fully human.

    P.S. Thanks to Scott at YouSchool for the book suggestion!