After reading Ellin's article, "A Plea for Focus," I am also reminded that our first schools are in their fourth year. What has really changed? For schools just beginning, what will change in four years?

In many of our schools, coaches' practices have changed, as well as the practices of those with whom they have worked closely. In pockets across the network, school leadership has all the markings of shared decision making, schools are drawing on the rich experiences and knowledge of parents, and parent leaders are partnering with schools to impact the quality of education for all children. Districts are seeing the results of three years with Cornerstone and beginning a process for scaling up. Yes, we see change, but are the changes deep and lasting, and are they school wide?

From my conversations with principals and coaches and my reading of school reviews,

I feel the frustration over the slow progress in bringing the whole faculty along. Why don't we have large numbers of teachers now proficient enough to open their classes to colleagues? Why don't we have diverse faculty members taking initiative and sharing leadership regardless of their formal positions? Why don't third year self-evaluations reflect dramatic changes school wide, especially in schools with some of our most outstanding coaches and principals? Are our schools immune to change?

Maybe they are, and perhaps with good reason. Some schools have introduced a number of change initiatives over the years, and faculties can count on two hands the models that have come and gone. These models are all presented as researched based until the advent of a new program with new research that refutes the previous research. Teachers are instructed to throw out the old manuals and start with the new. The faculty is trained, the mandate is "just do it," the test scores jump a bit, and all is well with the world—until someone introduces the next change. Accustomed to the way schools work, faculties have begun to build strong immune systems in order to cope with the succession of change initiatives that come without request for their input or their involvement in decision making. So the question for leadership teams is , "What can be done to break down these immune systems so that schools can trust the change process and know which changes to embrace?"

Breaking down immune systems can be a long and difficult process. Interestingly—and with good intent, the No Child Left Behind legislation has attacked school immune systems and created a sense of urgency around improving achievement with high stakes accountability. The reaction for many schools, however, has not been a thoughtful assessment of current reality and a plan that has real potential for success, but rather a general panic and scrambling for interventions that will protect schools from the immediate threat of state take over. For some school leaders, the plan is year-to-year survival. For teachers and children, school is all about "the test". Educators should be accountable for leaving no child behind, but motivation by fear and threats is not the way to cure what ails our schools. Cornerstone's alternative is the motivation of confident and competent teachers, strong leaders, empowered parents, and children whose passion for learning is eclipsed only by academic achievement that far exceeds what tests alone can measure.

One way we can begin to understand faculty immune systems is to look below the surface of what we call resistance. Often what some of us mistake as resistance to Cornerstone is really resistance to any change. Some teachers are resistant to a new initiative because they do not have the requisite knowledge and skills. For others it may be resistance to losing power, control, or the need to be needed. For still others, it may be the fear of accountability for failing students in their classes when students in coaches' classes across the hall are achieving at high levels. What can leadership teams do? Build school wide knowledge, empower teachers, and help teachers see that they, too, can get the results they see in coaches' classes.

This summer, I saw a great example of anticipating questions that schools could also use to counter a resistance to change. In Horry County, the leadership team at South Conway formally introduced Cornerstone with a parody of Alison McGhee's Countdown to Kindergarten, the story of a five year old who imagines the worst about starting school: Shoe tying will be a challenge because she has heard that you are not allowed to ask for help, ever. You may not have your cat or stuffed animals in school, and no one will care that you can already count backwards from ten. As the pre-kindergartener counts down the days, she feels the stress of what she describes as "big trouble". To her surprise, on her first day of kindergarten she is greeted by a caring teacher who welcomes the class with an overview of the first week: Monday - Shoe tying (Teachers can help), Tuesday—Stuffed Animal Day, and Wednesday—Counting Backwards from ten.

The parody, Countdown to Cornerstone, was a great use of humor to address common fears when something new is introduced. Instead of resistance and concern, teaching colleagues learned that they can ask for help, they won't have to give up what makes them and their students successful, and Cornerstone values the expertise they already bring to the work.

A second way of dealing with faculty immune systems is to recognize that compliance is another kind of resistance and can account for slow school progress. Compliant colleagues may participate in professional development, furnish their classrooms with lamps and bean bags, contribute to monthly asset maps, and even lead book studies, but make few changes in actual classroom practice. Faculty members with strong immune systems have learned that if they show up for meetings and appear to be embracing change, they will be left alone.

Here again, the role of leadership is to look deeper to determine if slow school wide progress can be attributed to mistaking compliance for commitment. Compliant teachers do as they are told. They are the ones who believe they are already crafting, holding invitational groups, conferencing with students, and using student work to inform instructional practice. "We're already doing this" is the language of compliance. The good news is compliance can be a step toward commitment because some faculty members need to see the proof before they believe it. The bad news is school leadership teams can be so grateful for compliance that they are satisfied with it.

Colleagues who are committed have a different set of behaviors that distinguish them from those who are merely compliant. These colleagues show up, but they also ask probing and provocative questions and welcome conversations prompted by others' questions. Committed colleagues seek feedback on their teaching practices, visit coaches' classes and invite coaches' and their principals to their rooms. They are among those suggesting strategies to bring the entire faculty along, drawing on the experiences of parents, checking the website to read about the work in other schools, video conferencing, contributing exemplars, and either serving on the leadership team or submitting new ideas.

I believe all Cornerstone schools want to make significant school wide progress, but some schools are simply not aware that they have become immune to deep and lasting change. School teams can break down faculty immune systems by understanding the symptoms and attending to the root causes with a healthy dose of good leadership, whole school access to ongoing professional development, use of the Cornerstone framework and other resources, and Ellin's favorite word, focus.