California Professional Standards for Education Leaders · Vision, equity, and continuous improvement
Use evidence (including, but not limited to student achievement, attendance, behavior and school climate data, research, and best practices) to shape and revise plans, programs, and activities that advance the vision.
Keep the shared vision visible in daily choices, then test whether students experience the opportunities it promises.
Developing the practice
This standard emphasizes the importance of using a wide range of evidence to inform decision-making and drive continuous improvement efforts that align with the school's vision. Here's an expansion on how evidence can be utilized to shape and revise plans, programs, and activities:
Begin with a consequential question: Define the decision the team must make, the students and outcomes involved, and what evidence would be relevant before opening a dashboard or requesting a report.
Build a balanced evidence set: Bring achievement, growth, attendance, behavior, course access, school climate, student work, implementation evidence, and stakeholder experience together when the question requires them.
Check quality and comparability: Confirm definitions, collection periods, participation, missing records, subgroup protections, and changes in systems or practice before comparing results.
Disaggregate without stereotyping: Examine patterns across student groups and settings while resisting deficit explanations and protecting confidentiality when groups are small.
Add context and lived experience: Use interviews, listening sessions, observations, and student or family feedback to explain patterns that administrative records cannot interpret alone.
Test competing explanations: Ask what else could produce the observed pattern, seek evidence that might challenge the preferred account, and distinguish correlation from a plausible cause.
Connect findings to the shared vision: State how the evidence supports, complicates, or contradicts the school’s priorities and which commitments should govern the response.
Select a bounded response: Match the scope of the action to the strength of the evidence, identify responsible people and resources, and specify what implementation should look like.
Monitor implementation and effects: Use short-cycle indicators to determine whether the planned action occurred, whom it reached, and whether student experience or outcomes changed as intended.
Close the learning loop: Return findings to the people who contributed evidence, document what was learned, and revise, expand, or discontinue the response transparently.
By using evidence, including student achievement, attendance, behavior and school climate data, research, and best practices, to shape and revise plans, programs, and activities, educational leaders can make informed decisions that drive meaningful and sustainable improvement towards achieving the school's vision and goals.
Software connections for this indicator
Schoolzilla
Helps a leadership team test whether the programs attached to its vision are reaching intended students and producing the evidence needed for revision.
View the SDLA product page →Product references illustrate a leadership capability and do not constitute endorsement. Confirm current features, privacy, accessibility, integrations, contracts, and district fit.
Two intellectual virtues for 1C2
Intellectual humility
Names the limits of the leader’s first interpretation and creates room for evidence and perspectives that may revise it.
Intellectual carefulness
Checks definitions, assumptions, accuracy, consequences, and confidentiality before acting.
A focused learning shelf
The School Leaders Our Children Deserve
George Theoharis
Use this work to deepen the judgment and practical moves called for in 1C2.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Use its research, convenings, and practitioner resources to extend local learning about 1C2.
Questions for reflection and mentoring
- Which part of this indicator is most likely to be performed for review rather than sustained in practice?
- What barrier becomes visible when the process is viewed from the least-served participant’s position?
- What claim is the team making, and what evidence actually supports it?
- What bounded change can be tested without waiting for a perfect solution?







































































