Progress Teaching

Free eBook: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Top tips for delivering effective staff feedback
Menu

Bespoke or Banked? What schools are learning about effective action steps 

Picture of Tom Cragg

Tom Cragg

Head of Client Success, MFL Consultant and Examiner, School Governor, former Head Teacher

Are we getting teacher action steps right?

96% of leaders and teachers who voted said they set bespoke action steps. 

That headline figure raises an important question: 
“What’s your strategy for setting teachers’ action steps? “

The action step is arguably the most important part of the feedback given to teachers. It describes what they should do differently to improve their teaching and, ultimately, to secure better outcomes for pupils. But as simple as that sounds, getting it right is a real challenge. 

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been exploring this question in more depth. 

Investigating how schools set action steps

To understand current practice, I approached this theme from two angles: 

🔹 A poll answered by 76 trust leaders, school leaders, and teachers, where participants also shared their reasoning in the comments. 

🔹 A review of action steps from 50 schools, including examples written from scratch and those drawn from shared banks or frameworks. 

This combination of data and qualitative feedback provided a fascinating snapshot of how schools currently approach teacher development, and what’s working (or not).

What the poll revealed

Results from a poll of 76 school and trust leaders on how they set teacher action steps.

The results were clear: 

🔹 68% of respondents said they value both options – using a shared bank and creating bespoke steps. 

🔹 28% prefer entirely bespoke steps. 

🔹 Only 4% work solely from a pre-set bank. 

This paints a consistent picture. Most schools want a balance between structure and flexibility, a framework that supports consistency and quality assurance, but that doesn’t limit professional judgement or responsiveness to context. 

In practice, schools appreciate the efficiency and alignment that come from a well-designed bank of action steps. Yet they also recognise that teaching is complex, and no predefined list can capture every nuance of classroom practice. 

The message is clear: schools don’t want to choose either/or, they want the best of both. 

What leaders and teachers said

The comments shared by leaders and teachers added valuable colour and context to the data. Here’s a selection that captures the range of perspectives: 

“I see the need for guaranteeing a standard of actions for those novice at mentoring; but it should never feel constrictive.”
“It depends on the stage the school is at when it comes to embedding feedback in the culture among staff. A bank can help scaffold those early conversations and bring alignment across wide groups, but bespoke steps are really useful once feedback is the norm.”
“A generic bank can be useful, especially if a school is looking to improve in a specific key area or enhance practice as a whole school (e.g. cold-calling or use of mini-whiteboards).”
“Feedback scaffolds can be particularly helpful for less experienced observers or for those learning to observe outside of a subject.”
“Personalised targets are helpful for setting subject-specific actions.”
“I would argue for a system with predefined action steps as I believe they can help both mentee and mentor. I would also keep the flexibility to step outside the predefined list as teachers are not robots and their development doesn’t always fit into a neat, predefined box.”

Across all these responses, one word stands out: balance.

Leaders and teachers see value in having something to draw from, but they also want the freedom to tailor actions to their unique context. 

What the sample of 50 schools showed

When I reviewed a cross-section of action steps from 50 schools, the variation was striking. 

In many schools, there didn’t appear to be a clear, shared approach to writing action steps. The format, tone, and level of specificity varied widely, even within the same organisation. 

However, in the schools where action steps were most consistent and actionable, there was a clear structure – the “do this, so that…” model. 

For example: 

Read challenging texts aloud with fluency, intonation, and expression, so that pupils hear and internalise the rhythms, phrasing, and prosody of skilled reading. 

This approach was both concise and purposeful. It clearly linked the teacher action to the intended pupil outcome, making it easier for teachers to understand the why behind the feedback. 

Key takeaways

From this small study, a few themes stand out: 

  1. Structure supports quality. 
    A shared framework or model (like “do this, so that…”) helps make feedback more consistent and meaningful. 
  2. Flexibility sustains ownership. 
    Allowing teachers and mentors to adapt or refine action steps keeps the process authentic and professional. 
  3. Clarity matters most. 
    Whether from a bank or written bespoke, the best action steps make the intended improvement crystal clear, and always link to impact on pupils. 

Looking ahead

As schools continue to refine their approaches to instructional coaching and teacher development, finding the right balance between structure and autonomy will remain key. 

The evidence suggests that neither a rigid bank nor a fully open system is ideal. Instead, the most effective models appear to blend guidance, exemplars, and professional discretion, helping teachers know what great looks like while trusting them to adapt to their classroom reality. 

Stay in the loop

Join our newsletter to get research, practical examples, and tools for improving lesson feedback and teacher development.

Scroll to Top