The Admin Angle: Why Administrators Shouldn’t Require Teachers to Post Learning Targets

I. Introduction

On paper, requiring teachers to post learning targets in every classroom sounds like a tidy shortcut to “teacher clarity.” If the goal is visible learning, then visible targets must be the answer—right? In practice, though, the policy often devolves into a compliance ritual that confuses posting with understanding. A sentence on the board can signal the presence of goals without ensuring that students grasp the purpose of the work or the criteria for success. What leaders really want—coherent instruction and students who can explain what they’re learning and why—doesn’t automatically follow from a posted sentence.

Check out our engaging printable posters. CLICK HERE to explore!

The research is quite supportive of clarity as a driver of achievement—but not of equating clarity with wall posters. John Hattie’s synthesis places teacher clarity high among factors that influence learning (commonly cited around d = 0.75), yet clarity encompasses far more than writing an objective on the board; it includes making intentions and success criteria understandable, usable, and referenced during learning, not just displayed. In other words, clarity is a practice, not a poster.

II. The Compliance Trap: When Posting Targets Backfires

Target-posting mandates typically aim for consistency, but they tend to standardize appearance, not understanding. After a few weeks, many posted targets become wallpaper—present, neat, and largely ignored. Teachers spend energy polishing phrasing; students learn that the “learning target” is something to copy down rather than a tool to steer their thinking. The ritual starts to reward tidy formatting over instructional substance. Leaders get what looks like “clarity,” while students may still be unclear about how to succeed.

More troubling, a posting requirement can narrow pedagogy. Some lessons work best when the purpose is revealed in the middle—after an initial puzzle or problem—so that curiosity drives engagement before formalizing the goal. When teachers must reveal the destination at the first minute of every class, we sometimes spoil the productive struggle or sense-making arc. Effective teaching flexes how and when the purpose is surfaced, referenced, and co-constructed with students. A rigid posting rule chokes that flexibility.

III. What Principals Actually Need: Evidence of Clarity, Not Wall Text

Leaders don’t need proof that a sentence exists; they need proof that students understand the purpose of their work and what counts as success. The research on formative assessment and metacognition is instructive here. Black and Wiliam’s seminal work shows that achievement rises when teachers and students use evidence during instruction to adjust teaching and learning. Posting a target doesn’t accomplish that by itself; clarifying the intention and using success criteria for feedback does.

Similarly, the Education Endowment Foundation’s guidance on metacognition and self-regulation emphasizes helping learners plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning—work that requires accessible intentions and workable success criteria, not just a posted sentence. When students can articulate the goal in their own words and judge their progress against clear criteria, they steer themselves. That’s metacognition in action, and it depends on practices—modeling, exemplars, check-ins—not on posters.

IV. Point-by-Point: Common Arguments for “Post the Target”—and Better Alternatives

Below are the usual justifications for requiring posted targets, paired with stronger, research-aligned replacements.

• “Posting targets guarantees teacher clarity.”
  • Better: Calibrate for teacher clarity by looking for practices, not posters: students can explain the purpose in their own words; success criteria are referenced during tasks; exemplars are discussed; feedback uses the criteria. Hattie’s work highlights clarity, but clarity is enacted, not hung.
• “Posting helps students know what they’re learning.”
  • Better: Teach the intention in ways that make sense to students and return to it during the lesson. The NSW Department of Education guidance explicitly cautions that learning intentions shouldn’t be routinized in their presentation (e.g., copied into books at the start of every lesson); they should be developed during planning and shared in ways that make sense, then referred to throughout the lesson.
• “Posting makes success criteria transparent.”
  • Better: Use student-friendly success criteria and exemplars with students. EEF and many state/departmental resources emphasize that criteria help most when broken into manageable actions and used for feedback—merely writing them up is insufficient.
• “Posting supports accountability: visitors can ‘see’ the goal.”
  • Better: Replace wall checks with student voice checks (“What are you learning? How will you know you’ve learned it?”) and short observation tools that track whether the intention and criteria are used during instruction. This yields real evidence of clarity, not decor.
• “Posting ensures consistency across classrooms.”
  • Better: Build consistency at the unit level (shared outcomes and common assessments) while allowing teachers to decide how and when to surface daily intentions. Consistency of understanding beats uniformity of format.
• “Posting targets is research-based.”
  • Nuance: Research supports clear intentions and criteria as part of effective teaching and formative assessment; it does not say a posted sentence causes learning. Multiple syntheses and guidance documents stress sharing, modeling, and using intentions and criteria—not mandating a display.

V. A Replacement Model: Principles Over Posters

Instead of “You must post learning targets,” define principles of clarity that hold across subjects and grade levels:

• Accessible Purpose: Students can explain what they’re learning and why it matters.
• Workable Criteria: Students can describe what good looks like—with examples, not just adjectives.
• In-Lesson Referencing: Teacher and students return to the purpose and criteria during the task and at closure.
• Fit for Pedagogy: Teachers flex the timing and format of surfacing the intention (e.g., reveal after a problem-solving hook).

These principles embrace the best of the research on formative assessment and visible learning—clarity as a lived routine. They keep the goal (student understanding) while dropping the guise (compliance posting).

VI. Step-by-Step Rollout Timeline: From Posting Rules to Clarity Routines

Phase 1 — Listen & Map (Weeks 1–2)

• Quick staff pulse: “What’s the current posting expectation? How much time does it take? What helps students more than posting?”
• Sample 20 classrooms: Are students able to explain the purpose? Are success criteria referenced during the task?
• Form a design team (teacher reps, coach, SPED/MLL specialists) to co-author the shift.

Phase 2 — Define the Signals of Clarity (Weeks 3–4)

• Adopt 3–4 look-fors used in all observations: student explanation of purpose; reference to criteria; use of exemplars/anchor papers; purposeful closure.
• Decide unit-level public artifacts (e.g., one-page unit overview with outcomes and common assessment windows).

Phase 3 — Communicate & Calibrate (Weeks 5–6)

• Announce: “We are ending the posting requirement and replacing it with clarity routines and checks for understanding.”
• Calibrate with video clips and student-work samples: practice naming the intention, deriving criteria, and crafting success-oriented feedback.

Phase 4 — Launch With Support (Weeks 7–12)

• Leaders run five-by-five walk-throughs (5 rooms × 5 minutes daily) using the clarity look-fors; give same-day micro-feedback.
• Instructional coaches host office hours for co-planning success criteria and selecting exemplars.

Phase 5 — Monitor & Iterate (Ongoing)

• Monthly “Clarity Snapshot”: % of students who can state the purpose; rate of observed reference to criteria; samples of annotated student work.
• Adjust routines, share wins, and refine supports.

VII. High-Signal Clarity Protocols

1. “Say-It-Back” Purpose Check (2 minutes)
   • After the launch or first modeling, ask 2–3 students: “What are we trying to learn today, and how will we know we’ve learned it?” Capture phrasing on a mini-whiteboard.
   • Why it works: Prioritizes student understanding of the intention rather than teacher display.
2. Success Criteria + Exemplar Pairing
   • Present a brief list of success criteria with an annotated exemplar (work sample or model).
   • Why it works: Criteria come alive when tied to concrete examples; this is central to formative assessment practice.
3. Mid-Lesson Criteria Re-Set (1 minute)
   • Pause: “Check your work against criteria 2 and 3 right now.” Students self-mark or peer-mark a single criterion.
   • Why it works: Promotes metacognition—monitoring and adjusting against explicit criteria.
4. Anchor Chart Over Poster
   • Co-create a living chart of success criteria as the lesson unfolds; update it with class language, misconceptions, and “look-fors” that emerged.
   • Why it works: Students build the criteria; the chart remains a tool, not a decoration.
5. Purposeful Closure (Exit Alignment)
   • Exit prompt: “Which criterion did you meet best today? Which needs work? Cite a sentence/example.”
   • Why it works: Closes the loop between intention, evidence, and next steps—core to assessment for learning.

VIII. Building Teacher Capacity Without Posting Mandates

Dropping a display rule should never mean dropping support. Provide a menu of low-lift routines: building student-friendly intentions from standards, converting criteria into checklists, selecting and annotating exemplars, and crafting micro-feedback that explicitly names which criterion a student has met. Newer teachers can co-plan with mentors: “Here’s the standard → here’s a draft intention in student language → here are three success criteria → here’s an exemplar we can mark up.”

Invest in coaching moves that make clarity visible: model a launch that withholds the intention for five minutes to allow puzzling, then names and co-constructs it; model a mid-lesson criteria check; model a closure where students self-assess with the criteria. These are teachable techniques. They honor the research that clarity matters while avoiding the pretense that compliance posting creates clarity.

IX. Tools & Artifacts to Use Instead of Posted Targets

1. Unit Overview (Team-Shared, 1 page)
   • Essential outcomes in plain language; common assessments; pacing window.
   • Use to build coherence across classrooms.
2. Lesson “Purpose & Proof” Card (Teacher-Facing, optional)
   • Purpose: “Students will be able to…” in student language.
   • Proof: The single best piece of evidence we’ll look for today.
3. Success-Criteria Cards / Slides
   • 3–5 criteria in student-friendly language; include one annotated exemplar screenshot.
   • Refer to them, don’t just display them.
4. Exemplar & Non-Example Set
   • Two brief samples that differ on one criterion; students sort and justify.
   • Turns criteria into a thinking task.
5. Clarity Look-Fors (Leader One-Pager)
   • Students can explain purpose; criteria referenced mid-lesson; exemplar visible; closure aligns to the intention.
6. Student Voice Log (Leader Quick Check)
   • During visits, ask two students the purpose and criteria; note phrasing. Use trends for coaching—not evaluation.

X. Communicating the Shift to Stakeholders

1. Staff Meeting Script
   • “We’re ending the requirement to post learning targets. Research supports clarity—not compliance rituals. We’re replacing wall checks with student voice checks, success-criteria use, and exemplar-based routines that actually move learning.”
2. Follow-Up Email (Template)
   • Subject: From Posters to Practice—Our Clarity Upgrade
   • Bullets: look-fors we’ll visit for; optional tools; coaching supports; timeline for calibration; how we’ll measure impact.
3. Family Newsletter Blurb
   • “You may see fewer ‘posted objectives’ and more in-class explanations, examples, and student self-checks. Our focus is helping students understand goals and evaluate their progress.”
4. Board/District Brief (Talking Points)
   • Why we’re changing (posting ≠ learning; clarity practices do); what replaces it; how we’ll monitor; how this aligns with research on formative assessment and metacognition.
5. FAQ for Teachers
   • “Do I still need a plan?” (Yes—for you; we’re not collecting it.)
   • “Do I have to show the intention?” (Yes—students should know it; you decide the best timing/format.)
   • “Will observations ‘ding’ me if nothing is posted?” (No. We’re checking student understanding and use of criteria.)

XI. Metrics & Monitoring: How to Know It’s Working

1. Student Voice
   • % of students who can explain the purpose in their own words, sampled during walk-throughs.
   • % who can name or locate a success criterion and describe how they used it.
2. Instructional Signal
   • Observation rates of mid-lesson criteria checks and exemplar use.
   • Frequency of purpose references at launch and closure.
3. Learning Outcomes
   • Movement on common assessments for standards currently taught.
   • Exit-ticket alignment: % of exits that genuinely assess the stated intention.
4. Teacher Experience
   • Time reclaimed from compliance tasks; perceived usefulness of clarity routines.
   • Coaching participation and requested support topics.
5. Sustainability
   • PLC/department use of unit overviews and exemplar banks.
   • Spread of routines (e.g., say-it-back checks) across departments.

XII. Case Studies

Urban Elementary. Leaders realized that posted objectives were ubiquitous but inert—students couldn’t explain them. The school ended the posting mandate and introduced a “Purpose & Proof” routine: teachers crafted a student-friendly purpose and one piece of evidence to look for, plus a mid-lesson criteria check. Within a quarter, walk-throughs showed students answering purpose questions with confidence, and grade-level teams reported fewer “we ran out of time” issues at closure because exit prompts now aligned directly to the intention. Teachers said the new routine helped them trim activities that didn’t serve the goal.

Enjoy science fiction? Check out my space books HERE on Amazon!

Suburban Middle. The school had excellent walls and mediocre clarity: posted targets, few exemplars, and rare criteria references. After shifting to exemplar-first teaching (two samples with annotated criteria) and quick student voice checks, leaders saw higher rates of self-assessment language (“I met criterion 2, but I need to fix 3”). Teams built small banks of anchor papers and used them in PLC evidence huddles. As writing units progressed, calibration improved, and so did student performance on common rubric strands.

Rural High. Teachers worried that dropping the posting rule would cause drift. Instead, the principal established unit-level coherence (shared outcomes and common assessment windows) and asked leaders to collect student-voice snippets during visits. Confidence rose quickly: students could articulate the purpose more often, and teachers reported feeling freer to launch with a problem first, then name the intention when students had a reason to care. Observed use of mid-lesson criteria checks more than doubled in two months.

XIII. Conclusion

Requiring visible learning targets promises clarity, but often produces decor. The best evidence we have—spanning formative assessment and visible learning—argues not for a poster but for shared, used, and revisited intentions and criteria, woven into teaching in ways students understand. When administrators police the wall, teachers polish the wall. When administrators listen to students, observe criteria in use, and coach toward metacognitive routines, teachers refine instruction and students take charge of their learning.

So keep the aim—clarity—and drop the ritual. Replace posting requirements with principles and routines that make purpose and success criteria active tools in every classroom: say-it-back checks, exemplar pairings, mid-lesson criteria resets, and purposeful closure. Calibrate your look-fors, protect time for co-planning exemplars, and monitor student voice and work—not the wall. You’ll trade compliance for understanding and convert “visible targets” into visible learning.

Works You Can Reference in Staff/Board Briefs

• Hattie/Visible Learning. Visible Learningplus: 250+ Influences on Student Achievement (Teacher Clarity ≈ 0.75). Also Corwin summaries clarifying that clarity is more than posting.
• Black & Wiliam. Inside the Black Box and follow-ups—formative assessment improves learning when evidence is used to adjust teaching.
• Education Endowment Foundation. Metacognition and Self-Regulated Learning—students benefit when they understand goals and criteria and monitor progress.
• NSW Department of Education. Sharing Learning Intentions: effective intentions are developed in planning, shared in ways that make sense, referred to throughout—and need not be routinized (e.g., copied at the start of every lesson).

Check out some of my latest science fiction books HERE on Amazon!

Transform your classroom into an inspiring, vibrant learning space with our beautifully designed printable posters! Perfect for engaging your students and enhancing your teaching environment, our poster bundles cover everything from historical philosophers to animals. CLICK HERE to explore our exclusive collections on Teachers Pay Teachers and give your students the motivational boost they need!