The report\u2019s findings are clear and actionable. I recently shared it as pre-reading for several partner workshops, and participants told me it was worth their time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As you might imagine, McKinsey\u2019s research team dug deep. They looked at global data and interviewed and surveyed hundreds of education leaders and experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Only 20 percent of the leaders surveyed said their transformation efforts had met their goals for student learning and system improvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
McKinsey then identified 14 education systems that, at least to me, appear to have little in common… except one thing, and it\u2019s a big deal: their students are progressing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The list includes national systems as diverse as Estonia, Malawi, and Peru, as well as state-level systems as far ranging as Cear\u00e1 in Brazil, Mississippi in the U.S., and Punjab in India. The researchers studied what the 14 systems had in common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They found seven \u201clevers.\u201d Not one of them is revolutionary. But together they dramatically change the odds. In fact, systems using six or seven of these levers were about six times more likely to meet their student outcome and system transformation goals than those using four or fewer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I had to read that a couple of times to absorb the magnitude of the finding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what are these levers? In McKinsey\u2019s words:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seeing these levers together helps explain why promising programs and interventions so often produce disappointing results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While my research budget has been described as \u201cconsiderably smaller\u201d than McKinsey\u2019s, I see a pattern across the education field. If I had to put numbers to it, about 80 percent of the conversation about improving learning outcomes focuses on what<\/em> to implement. Maybe 20 percent focuses on how<\/em> to implement it effectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n McKinsey\u2019s findings suggest that balance is off. The leaders surveyed cited conflicting priorities more often than any other challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In my work, I see one way those conflicting priorities accumulate. Weak implementation can make a promising program or intervention look ineffective. When results fall short, leaders may move on without answering a critical question: Did we choose the wrong intervention, or did we never give it what it needed to work?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Often, a new priority joins an earlier one that remains only partially implemented. Both compete for the same limited capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So here is this week\u2019s invitation: Choose one of your organization\u2019s top priorities for improving student learning and ask two questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Which levers are strongest? Which one most needs attention?<\/p>\n\n\n\n And if you\u2019re a funder supporting systems change, I\u2019d invite you to consider: To what extent does your funding support strong implementation? Where might your requirements be adding work that competes with what grantees are already trying to implement?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oh, and you can read McKinsey\u2019s 19 page brief or 139 page full report here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/adgneducation.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Callout-NS-1-1024x788.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n