In today’s ever-evolving education landscape, schools, districts, and educational organizations are bursting at the seams with initiatives. New programs, longstanding policies, legacy practices… they pile up like unread emails. While many are introduced with the best intentions, not all yield the desired outcomes. Some of these efforts are game-changers, and others just quietly drain time, energy, and resources. Over time, this accumulation can overwhelm educators, dilute focus, and hinder student progress.
So how do we clear a path to refocus on what truly works? Enter de-implementation.
What Is De-implementation and Why Does It Matter?
De-implementation generally refers to the systemic removal, reduction, or replacement of practices that are no longer effective, evidence-based, or aligned with current goals (Norton et. al., 2019). Generally, organizational change emphasizes adopting new strategies without a clear de-implementation process to remove clutter and enhance clarity and impact. The consequences of continuing with ineffective practices are far-reaching, including consuming time without yielding results, undermining trust in leadership, and stalling progress on initiatives that do work.
In the education context, Peter M. DeWitt captures the dilemma perfectly in his book De-Implementation: Creating the Space to Focus on What Works (2022), noting that educators are “buried under old practices, new ideas, and recommended initiatives” (back cover). Without a clear framework to evaluate and eliminate ineffective practices, schools risk wasting valuable time and resources, and more critically, compromising student outcomes. De-implementation offers a pathway to strategic systemic improvement. By removing what doesn’t work, educators can focus their energy on proven strategies, foster a culture of reflection, and improve student learning experiences.
Letting Go With Purpose
If your school or district is feeling overwhelmed by initiatives that no longer make an impact, DeWitt (2022) offers helpful guidance for teams looking to thoughtfully let go of what isn’t working. He encourages educators to start with honest reflection: Which practices are truly supported by evidence? Which ones actually help students? Which initiatives are just there? When something isn’t pulling its weight, it might be time to retire it.
DeWitt also reminds us that de-implementation is not a one -person job. The most meaningful change happens when teachers, administrators, and even students come together to identify which practices are burdensome, outdated, or ineffective. That shared understanding can build trust and commitment to the process. From there, school teams can develop a thoughtful and intentional plan, deciding whether that means removing a practice entirely or simply scaling it back. Throughout the process, ongoing check-ins on educator experiences and student outcomes ensure that de-implementation is doing what it’s meant to do: clearing a path toward what works best.
Challenges to De-implementation
Despite its benefits, de-implementation is not without challenges. Rock and Lea (2025) point out that many of these challenges are not just technical in nature but are deeply rooted in the organization’s culture. For instance, educators may develop strong emotional attachments to long-standing practices. These methods may be tied to past successes, professional identity, or the way they were originally taught years ago. As a result, outdated practices may continue long after their usefulness has faded. Fear of change and a lack of understanding of the process add further layers of complexity to de-implementation. Stepping away from familiar practices and routines can feel risky. When educators don’t know what a new practice looks like or whether it will work, they may cling to familiar routines simply because they feel safer. Also, without a clear criterion for determining which practices should stay or go and transparency in how the decisions are made, de-implementation can stall. This ambiguity can cause teams and educators to hesitate to phase out outdated practices, often leading to the maintenance of the status quo.
To overcome these barriers, leaders must foster a culture of continuous improvement, where reflection and evidence guide decisions – not tradition or habit. School and district leaders play a critical role by modeling data-informed practices, consistently communicating the rationale for change, and demonstrating organizational commitment. For example, collecting, analyzing, and reflecting on disaggregated classroom and school performance data can highlight where outdated practices fail to increase student engagement and achievement across all subgroups of students. Also, providing educators with professional development that incorporates clear, evidence-based strategies supported by actionable data can increase interest in using approaches proven to improve student outcomes. When educators see that de-implementation decisions are grounded in evidence and linked to improved student success, resistance can decrease, and motivation for change grows.
Getting Started On The Path to De-implementation
If you’re ready to begin the de-implementation journey, you can use the concepts outlined by DeWitt to get started. Consider these starting points:
- Conduct an initiative inventory
Begin by conducting an initiative inventory – a comprehensive list of all current programs, practices, and resources related to your focus area. This inventory helps identify redundancies, overlapping efforts, and initiatives that may no longer align with district goals or current research. Pair this with data analysis and staff input to get feedback on what is effective and what is creating challenges. Look for patterns in student performance data to confirm where gaps exist. This step ensures decisions are grounded in evidence rather than assumptions.
- Engage a diverse group of perspectives
Share findings from your inventory and evaluation with critical perspectives, including teachers, families, leadership teams, and possibly students, to build trust and collaboration. Host information sessions to explain the rationale for change and invite feedback through surveys or advisory groups. Engaging critical perspectives early creates transparency and helps surface practical insights that can shape the de-implementation plan.
- Select one program or practice to de-implement
Based on the evaluation and the critical perspectives input, identify one program or practice that is least aligned with your district’s goals or current research/evidence. Prioritize criteria such as impact on student outcomes, resource demands, and feasibility of removal. Choosing one focus area prevents staff from being overwhelmed and allows for a more manageable transition.
- Make a de-implementation plan
Once you’ve identified one practice or program to de-implement, create a clear, phased plan. Outline what will remain, what will change, and when those changes will occur. For example, maintain familiar elements while gradually introducing new practices. Include professional development opportunities, so staff feel supported and prepared. A well-structured plan can reduce anxiety and set the stage for the successful implementation of new strategies.
- Continuously monitor, reflect, and refine
Change doesn’t end with implementation; it requires ongoing reflection. Establish benchmarks to measure progress and schedule regular check-ins with advisory groups to address challenges. Share updates with staff and families through newsletters or meetings to keep communication open. Don’t forget to celebrate progress and highlight success stories to maintain momentum and reinforce the value of the change. Use feedback loops to adjust strategies as needed, ensuring that the new approach meets student needs.
Willow Hall School District – A Case Study In De-implementation
Let’s take a look at how this path to de-implementation looks in a scenario about a school district that wants to change literacy instruction and outcomes.
For ten years, Willow Hall School District, serving nearly 18,000 students, relied on a Balanced Literacy approach to foster student choice and engagement in reading. Initially, this approach aligned with district goals, but over time, cracks began to show. Teachers reported that students in grades K-2 struggled with phonics and phonemic awareness, differentiation became increasingly difficult due to growing class sizes, and district assessments revealed inconsistent gains for struggling readers. Adding to the challenge, new research emphasized structured literacy practices, which conflicted with the Balanced Literacy philosophy. It was clear to Willow Hall leadership that the district needed to evaluate what was working and what wasn’t.
The district leadership recognized they needed to use a de-implementation process to effectively implement change. Before making any decisions, Willow Hall conducted an initiative inventory to review all current literacy programs and resources. This inventory helped leaders identify overlapping efforts, redundancies, and areas for resource reallocation. With this clarity, the district leaders convened a committee of teachers, principals, and literacy coaches to analyze student data and current literacy research. They hosted information sessions, gathered feedback through surveys and focus groups, and formed a teacher advisory group to ensure transparency and trust. Based on this information, leadership decided that the district would focus on de-implementing Balanced Literacy while exploring literacy options that better fit the needs of their students. The result was a phased plan: Year 1 blended familiar practices like choice reading with new phonics-based materials, while Year 2 would introduce a full, structured literacy curriculum across K-5. Professional development (i.e., training and coaching) would be provided to equip teachers for success.
The Willow Hall district leaders also recognized the need to monitor the progress of de-implementation. At the start, they decided to administer educator surveys to identify concerns and continue quarterly advisory group check-ins to address them. They will keep families and educators informed through newsletters and digital-based messages. The leadership is aware that challenges will occur, but by leveraging an initiative inventory and committing to collaboration and continuous improvement, the Willow Hall school district is creating a model for thoughtful, evidence-based change.
Conclusion
In a time when educators are asked to do more with less resources, de-implementation offers a refreshing alternative. It’s a call to focus, to reflect, and to prioritize what truly matters. By removing ineffective practices, we create space for innovation and excellence in education.
On the path to improving outcomes, let’s not forget, de-implementation is not just about taking things away – it’s about clearing the path to do better and what matters most.
References
DeWitt, P. M. (2022). De-Implementation: Creating the Space to Focus on What Works. Corwin.
Initiative Inventory Lesson (n.d.). NIRN SISEP Active Implementation Hub. https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/resource/lesson-initiative-inventory/
Norton, W. E., Chambers, D. A., & Kramer, B. S. (2019). Conceptualizing de-implementation in cancer care delivery. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 37(1), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00589Rock, J., & Lea, C. H. (2025). A Critical Case for De-Implementation in U.S. Social Services: Abolishing What is Ineffective, What is Inefficient, and What Harms. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2025.2532977