Education reformers have increasingly turned to the potential of continuous improvement models to support school improvement. However, to be successful, any approach to school improvement depends on educators developing collective agency—the capability to work together proactively to solve shared problems. Unfortunately, schools in need of improvement tend to operate in contexts of adversity that can pose “unfriendly” problems that challenge the development of collective agency. Chronic adversity can instead foster defensiveness, helplessness, or fragmenting conflict that constrain collective agency. Considering evidence that fostering collective agency amid adversity depends on how teams are able to experience task accomplishment, address problems, and become cohesive and affirmed teams, this chapter draws on existing literature to examine the promise and limitations of three popular models of continuous improvement—improvement science, design-based improvement, and lesson study. Promise is found in how such models support teams of educators to take initiative to address their authentic problems of practice, identify manageable tasks, break down problem complexity, and recognize shared struggle and potential for improvement. However, important limitations also arise. Such models tend to be time-intensive and call for external supports and complex learning processes that may be a poor fit to existing capacities in schools facing adversity. The chapter offers implications for partnerships and coaches to codesign and skillfully scaffold such models to develop school teams at their next level of work to incrementally stretch their problem-solving capabilities.