Professional Learning  ›  Leadership & Coaching  ›  Workshops  ›  Deciding What to Stop
a ready-to-run workshopDeciding What to Stop
Leadership & Coaching · Workshop

Deciding What to Stop (Workshop)

Everything you need to lead this with your staff or PLC: a minute-by-minute run-of-show, what to say, what to hand out, and how to make it stick. Pick the length that fits your slot.

Key takeaway

Schools are far better at starting things than stopping them, so initiatives, programs, meetings, and requirements accumulate without limit until staff are buried and nothing is done well, and the discipline most leaders lack is de-implementation, deliberately deciding what to stop so that every new thing is matched by removing an old one.

Format
PLC / team meeting
Length
45 minutes
Group size
Any (works 4-40)
Who can run it
Any leader or administrator
You will need
Slides (5)Printed handoutYour current list of initiativesA timer
Aligned to
Learning Forward: Learning CommunitiesInTASC 10: Leadership & CollaborationResearch on de-implementation and initiative overload
Share / assign

Why it works

Schools have a structural bias toward addition. Every problem invites a new program, every good idea becomes a new initiative, every concern generates a new requirement, meeting, or form, and because starting something new is visible, energizing, and feels like leadership, while stopping something is awkward and invisible, the things schools do only ever accumulate. The result is initiative overload: staff carrying an ever-growing pile of programs, practices, meetings, and requirements, most adopted with good intentions, none ever removed, until teachers are so overloaded that nothing gets the attention it needs and everything is done thinly and resentfully. This overload is one of the most common reasons change fails and one of the biggest drains on morale, and it is almost entirely self-inflicted, the cumulative result of a leadership culture that knows how to start but not how to stop. De-implementation is the deliberate discipline of deciding what to stop doing, and it is the missing counterpart to implementation. The core principle is subtraction as a condition of addition: when something new is adopted, something old should be removed, so that the total load stays within what staff can actually sustain, rather than ratcheting upward forever. Practicing it involves several moves. Auditing what is actually being asked of staff, the full inventory of initiatives, programs, meetings, practices, and requirements, which leaders are often shocked to see in aggregate, since each was added separately and no one ever looks at the whole pile. Evaluating honestly what is worth keeping: what is actually working and worth the load it imposes, what has outlived its purpose, what was never effective, what is done out of habit or fear rather than value. Deciding deliberately what to stop, which requires the courage to end things, including things people are attached to, things that were once someone's initiative, and things that are merely traditional, and the willingness to absorb the awkwardness of stopping. Protecting the subtraction when adding: making it a genuine rule that a new initiative comes with the removal of an old one, rather than a nice idea that never happens. And communicating the stops as deliberate and valued, framing de-implementation as respect for staff's time and focus rather than as abandonment or failure. Several things make this hard, which is why it is rare. Stopping feels like admitting a past decision was wrong, or disrespecting whoever championed the thing. Sunk-cost thinking makes people cling to things precisely because effort was invested. Someone is usually attached to almost anything. And stopping lacks the positive glow of starting. Overcoming these requires a leader to treat de-implementation as a core, ongoing leadership responsibility rather than an occasional cleanup, to normalize stopping as a healthy and respectful act, and to protect staff capacity as a finite resource to be managed rather than endlessly drawn down. A caution: de-implementation is not an excuse to cut indiscriminately or to stop things that are working; it is disciplined subtraction in service of doing the remaining things well. The workshop helps leaders audit the accumulated load, decide deliberately what to stop, and build subtraction into how the school adopts anything new, so staff are protected from the overload that dooms change.

The research: Research and practice on de-implementation, initiative overload, and change management.

The run-of-show

Choose your slot. The agenda, timings, and length update to match.

    The core activity: decide deliberately what to stop

    The heart of the session is auditing the accumulated load, deciding what to stop, and building subtraction into how the school adopts anything new.

    When you start something, stop somethingSchools know how to start and not how to stop, so the load ratchets upward until staff are buried and nothing is done well. De-implementation, deliberately deciding what to stop, is the missing discipline that keeps change survivable.

    Facilitator notes

    Protect staff capacity as a finite resourceStaff time and focus are not infinite, yet schools draw them down endlessly by only adding. Treating capacity as a resource to be managed, and matching every addition with a subtraction, is what keeps the remaining work doable and well done.

    Adapt it

    Participant handout

    One page for every teacher. Print it, or save it as a PDF.

    K12 Academics · Professional Learning

    Deciding What to Stop: subtraction as a condition of addition

    Protect staff from initiative overload: audit the full load, decide deliberately what to stop, and match every new thing with the removal of an old one.

    1. The full load currently on staff (audit):
    2. Something that has outlived its purpose or never worked:
    3. Something done from habit or fear rather than value:
    4. What I will deliberately stop:
    5. How I make subtraction a rule when adding anything new:

    Make it stick

    Disciplined subtraction keeps change survivable. Close by setting the follow-up:

    Common questions

    Isn't stopping something an admission that we made a mistake adopting it?
    Sometimes, but usually not, and reframing this is essential because the fear that stopping means admitting error is one of the main reasons overload accumulates. Many things worth stopping were good decisions in their time that have simply outlived their purpose, the problem they addressed has changed, a better approach has emerged, or the context has moved on, and ending them is not an admission of error but a recognition that circumstances evolve. Other things are worth stopping not because adopting them was wrong but because the total load has grown beyond what staff can sustain, so something has to give regardless of each item's individual merit, which is a capacity decision, not a verdict on any one choice. And even in the cases where something genuinely was not effective, treating the honest recognition of that as a shameful admission rather than as good learning is exactly the dysfunction that keeps ineffective things alive. A leader who can say this served us well and its time has passed, or we have taken on more than we can do well, so we are going to stop some things, models a healthy relationship to change that frees the organization to subtract. The reframe is that stopping is a normal, healthy, ongoing part of managing an organization's work, not a confession, and leaders who treat it that way can de-implement without the paralysis that the admission-of-error framing creates.
    How do I stop something people are attached to without a backlash?
    You handle it with honesty, consultation where appropriate, and clear framing, recognizing that some discomfort is unavoidable but backlash is usually manageable when people understand the why. Attachment is real, almost anything has someone who championed it, benefits from it, or is simply used to it, so stopping it will meet some resistance, and pretending otherwise sets you up poorly. Several things reduce the backlash. Explain the reasoning: people accept stops far better when they understand that it is about protecting capacity and doing the remaining work well, not a dismissal of what is ending or of those attached to it. Acknowledge the value the thing had rather than disparaging it, so its champions feel respected rather than repudiated. Consult where you genuinely can, involving staff in the audit and the decisions about what to stop often surfaces that teachers themselves want to stop more than you expected, since they feel the overload most. Be clear that stopping is deliberate and principled, part of a disciplined practice of matching additions with subtractions, rather than arbitrary or a cost cut in disguise. And absorb the awkwardness that remains as part of the job, since a leader unwilling to tolerate any discomfort will never stop anything. Handled this way, most stops generate far less backlash than feared, and staff often experience the net reduction in load as a relief and a sign that leadership respects their time.
    How do I decide what to stop without cutting things that are actually working?
    You evaluate honestly against value and load rather than cutting indiscriminately, because de-implementation done wrong, slashing things blindly or stopping what works, is as damaging as the overload it is meant to cure. The discipline is disciplined subtraction in service of doing the remaining work well, which means the question for each thing is not merely can we drop this but is this worth the load it imposes. You look honestly at the full inventory and sort it: what is genuinely working and worth its cost should be protected, not cut; what has outlived its purpose, what was never effective, and what persists only out of habit, tradition, or fear are the candidates to stop. The goal is to remove the low-value load that is burying staff so that the high-value work gets the attention it deserves, which is the opposite of cutting things that work. This requires real evaluation rather than across-the-board reduction, and it requires resisting two opposite errors: keeping everything out of attachment and sunk cost, and cutting everything out of a crude drive for less. Honest assessment of value against load, ideally informed by the staff who do the work and can tell you what is worth keeping, is what lets you subtract the right things. De-implementation is a scalpel, not an axe, and the point is always to protect capacity for what matters, never to simply do less regardless of worth.

    Go deeper

    Build it into a bigger day

    Workshop
    Leading Change & Initiative Fatigue
    Workshop
    Leading Continuous Improvement
    Workshop
    Vision & School Improvement Goals