Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Do Now: Reflection
• Why did you join the education profession? – What/who inspired you?– What did you hope to accomplish?
• Why do you remain in the profession?– What/who motivates you?– What do you hope to accomplish?
• How do you know if you’re successful?
Principals’ Meeting
January 27, 2015
Objectives• Know the goals, priorities and strategies of “Destination 2025” and the
DRAFT Comprehensive Literacy Improvement Plan (CLIP)• Understand
– Need for and purpose of the strategic plan and CLIP--first “Destination 2025” action plan
– Vision, key elements (e.g., instructional design), and “why” of the CLIP– Timelines and expectations for early implementation, including your role– “Steps” in the effective management of complex change
• Be able to Do– Reinforce the District’s vision for school and student success (e.g., D2025
and CLIP)– Prepare your staff/school for complex change and deep, purposeful CLIP
implementation
Reflection
With your table group—• Review the Strategic Plan, “Destination 2025,” hand-
outs• Discuss the priorities, goals, and strategies– What, if anything, is unclear?– What surprises you (e.g., what’s missing or
emphasized)?– What are the implications for your work?
https://prezi.com/ysrn7ihjwaoa/80-90-100-updated/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy
As hard as we’re working, if we continue with our current rate of progress…
Reading/LA Proficiency in Grades 3-8, Improving but Not Fast Enough
20142016
20182020
20222024
20262028
20302032
20342036
20382040
20422044
20462048
20500.0
10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
Year
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
The District’s grades 3-8 RLA proficiency rate increased by 1.6 percentage points from 2013 to 2014. At that growth rate it would take until 2050 to reach 90% proficiency.
33.6%
91.2%
Math Proficiency in Grades 3-8 Improving, but Not Fast Enough
20142016
20182020
20222024
20262028
20302032
20342036
20380.0
10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
Year
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
The District’s grades 3-8 math proficiency rate increased by an annual rate of 2.3 percentage points over the past two years. At that rate it would take until 2038 to reach 90% proficiency.
35.1%
90.3%
Districtwide AttendanceThis year, attendance is following the same general pattern as previous years, but lower overall—including a significant drop after the holiday break
Attendance: Increasing Instructional TimeHowever, several schools dramatically improved attendance the week before the holiday break (as compared to last year).
Elementary School
13-14 to 14-15 YTD Difference
Middle School
13-14 to 14-15 YTD Difference
High School13-14 to
14-15 YTD Difference
Hamilton Elementary 7.8
Chickasaw Middle 5.8 Whitehaven High 4.6
Cordova Elementary 6.3
Germantown Middle 4.7 Hamilton High 5.2
Shady Grove Elementary 4.6
Hickory Ridge Middle 3.6 Manassas High 3.9
A. B. Hill Elementary 4.4 Kirby Middle 3.1 Hillcrest High 3.6
Wells Station Elementary 4.3
Havenview Middle 2.7
Memphis Health Careers Academy 3.4
K-8 School 13-14 to 14-15 YTD Difference
Cummings School 3.9
Top
5 Im
prov
ed S
choo
ls
by S
choo
l Lev
el
Attendance: Increasing Instructional TimeAnd several schools dramatically improved attendance the week after the holiday break (as compared to last year).
Elementary School
13-14 to 14-15 YTD Difference
Middle School13-14 to
14-15 YTD Differenc
eHigh School
13-14 to 14-15 YTD Difference
Carnes Elementary 6.8
Treadwell Middle School 5.3 Whitehaven High 7.2
Winchester Elementary 4.5
Germantown Middle 3.0 Hillcrest High 7.0
Campus Elementary 2.2 Kirby Middle 2.7
Martin Luther King Transition Center 5.6
Idlewild Elementary 2.1 Geeter Middle 1.9 Manassas High 4.5
Scenic Hills Elementary 1.6
Hickory Ridge Middle 1.9 Middle College High 2.2
Top
5 Im
prov
ed S
choo
ls
by S
choo
l Lev
el
Attendance: Increasing Instructional Time12.3% of all district absences to date in 2014-15 resulted from suspensions
(74,146 suspension days out of 604,705 total days absent)
SuspensionsOther
Attendance: Increasing Instructional TimeThe District suspension rate for first semester this year (2014-15) is approximately the same, yet slightly higher than, first semester last year (2013-14).
1st SemesterStudents
Suspended2013-14
40th-DayEnrollment
2013-14
Suspension Rate
in 2013-14
1st SemesterStudents
Suspended2014-15
40th-DayEnrollment
2014-15
Suspension Rate
in 2014-15
12,902117,428 11.0 13,637 116,013 11.8
Attendance: Increasing Instructional TimeSeveral schools reduced suspension rates for first semester of this school
year (2014-15), compared to the first semester of last year (2013-14).
Elementary School
13-14 to 14-15
Semester 1 Decrease
Middle School
13-14 to 14-15
Semester 1
Decrease
High School13-14 to 14-
15 Semester 1 Decrease
LaRose Elementary 8.5
Chickasaw Middle 12.4 MCS Prep - Southwest 49.2
Vollentine Elementary 8.1
Woodstock Middle 8.6 MCS Prep - Northwest 24.1
Gardenview Elementary 6.2 Geeter Middle 4.1 Overton High 12.5
South Park Elementary 4.5
Georgian Hills Middle 2.8 Hillcrest High 9.4
Sherwood Elementary 4.3 Kirby Middle 2.5
Memphis Health Careers Academy 5.1
K-8 School13-14 to 14-15 Semester 1 Decrease
Snowden School 1.5
Top
5 Im
prov
ed S
choo
ls
by S
choo
l Lev
el
Attendance: Increasing Instructional TimeSome schools are currently on track to beat their overall attendance rate from last year.
Top
5 Im
prov
ed S
choo
ls
by S
choo
l Lev
el
Elementary School
13-14 to 14-15 YTD
DifferenceMiddle School
13-14 to 14-15 YTD
DifferenceHigh School 13-14 to 14-15
YTD Difference
Egypt Elementary 1.4
Germantown Middle 2.4
MCS Prep - Southwest 2.9
Alcy Elementary 1.3
Treadwell Middle School 1.5
B. T. Washington High 2.1
Whitehaven Elementary 1.2 Kirby Middle 1.0 Whitehaven High 1.8Vollentine Elementary 1.0
Geeter Middle 1.0 Hillcrest High 1.7
Kingsbury Elementary 1.0
Oakhaven Middle 0.8
Cordova High School 0.9
K-8 School 13-14 to 14-15 YTD Difference
Cummings School 0.7
Notice that…LaRose Elementary:• Made dramatic improvements in instructional culture, as
measured by Insight, +1.9 points• Made dramatic increases in teacher perceptions of the
school’s learning environment (+2.8 points) and strength of observation and feedback (+2.4 points)
Carver High:• Made dramatic improvements in instructional culture, as
measured by insight, +2.5 points• Made dramatic improvements in teacher perceptions of
the school’s learning environment (+ 3.8 points) and the strength of observation and feedback systems (+1.8 points)
Changes in Reading/LA Proficiency Rates, DEA Test A to B, by Grade
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8 English I English II English III0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
36%
42%45%
38%34% 32%
38%
31%
51%
24%
29%
39%43%
45%
35% 35%38%
43%
49%
31%
DEA Reading/LA Proficiency Rates
Test A Test B
Changes in Reading/LA Proficiency Rates, DEA Test A to B, by School
• 242 schools (or groups within schools*) have taken both Test A and Test B.
• 78 schools showed increases of +5 percentage points in rate of students Proficient or Advanced in R/LA
• 55 schools showed decreases of +5 percentage points
* Some schools are counted more than once in that they have given the DEA in English I, II, and III.
Discovery Education AssessmentThe following schools showed the most improvement in percentage of students proficient or advanced from Test A to Test B in reading/language arts:
School Test A Test B ChangeRidgeway Middle 37.14 51.83 14.69Douglass Elementary-Middle 27.83 42.15 14.33LaRose Elementary 13.69 27.78 14.09Craigmont Middle 31.04 44.74 13.70Getwell Elementary 26.97 40.35 13.38
Elementary Reading/Language Arts
English I
School Test A Test B ChangeCarver High 5.45 58.49 53.04Craigmont High 29.85 65.43 35.58Manassas High 15.46 41.84 26.37Trezevant High 10.29 31.30 21.00Kirby High 24.30 44.30 20.00
Discovery Education AssessmentThe following schools showed the most improvement in percentage of students proficient or advanced from Test A to Test B in reading/language arts:
School Test A Test B ChangeWestwood High 13.95 39.76 25.81Raleigh Egypt High 14.77 39.58 24.82Douglass High 31.11 51.82 20.71Manassas High 35.11 44.79 9.69Cordova High 59.14 68.12 8.98
English II
English IIISchool Test A Test B Change
Cordova High 22.54 49.47 26.93Northwest Prep Academy 12.90 35.29 22.39Northeast Prep Academy 0.00 19.44 19.44Memphis Health Careers Acad 8.33 25.00 16.67Kingsbury High 11.35 26.94 15.59
Discovery Education AssessmentThe following schools showed the most improvement in percentage of students proficient or advanced from Test A to Test B in mathematics:
SchoolTest
ATest
B ChangeSpringdale Elementary 24.59 74.64 50.05
Ridgeway Middle 35.09 57.40 22.31Highland Oaks Middle 30.78 52.70 21.92
Geeter Middle 13.21 34.60 21.39
Craigmont Middle 24.50 43.60 19.11
Elem
enta
ry
Mat
hem
atics
Alge
bra
I
School Test A Test B ChangeSouthwest Prep Academy 6.45 47.06 40.61Geeter Middle 36.47 76.62 40.15Riverview K-8 60.00 91.67 31.67B. T. Washington High 11.34 32.53 21.19Trezevant High 42.68 61.39 18.71
School Test A Test B ChangeOakhaven High 14.00 39.58 25.58Memphis Health Careers Acad 0.00 12.50 12.50Cordova High 15.25 27.29 12.04B. T. Washington High 0.00 10.61 10.61Middle College High 69.12 79.41 10.29
Alge
bra
II
Revisit your Reflection
• Why did you join the education profession? – What/who inspired you?– What did you hope to accomplish?
• Why do you remain in the profession?– What/who motivates you?– What do you hope to accomplish?
• How do you know if you’re successful?
Comprehensive Literacy Improvement Plan
A systemwide strategy to leverage opportunities--experience and expertise--to
accelerate literacy learning across Shelby County Schools
CLIP BACKGROUNDWhy do we need it?
SCS’ Challenging Context• Increasing student needs (and demands on teachers)
– High number of high-poverty students– Growing number of ELLs– Limited family education– Low levels of reading readiness at school entry
• Higher expectations for students--college and career ready standards• Changing assessment and accountability expectations
– Teacher and Leader Effectiveness– TCAP and TN NCLB waiver (e.g., focus on 3rd grade and above, no accountability
for writing)– Increased pressure to improve/AMOs (e.g., ASD take-overs, school closures)
• Unstable district context (merger and de-merger)– Changes in benchmark assessments, RTI2 implementation and tracking, coaching
structure(s) and PD, etc. – Unstable staff at district, school, and classroom levels
• Lack of consistent vision and support
SCS Students not On-track for College and Career Readiness—Across all grades
SCS Students not On-track for College and Career Readiness—Across all grades
Average US HS Graduate: 910-1210L
CCR/CCSS Expectation: 1300LAverage SCS 10th Grader:
SCS Students Making Progress in Literacy Learning
2012 2013 20140
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
32.4 32.0 33.6
49.1 49.4
56
42.8 41.3
48.6
19.922.8 21.9
Grades 3-8English IEnglish IIEnglish III
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
*
*Includes Alternative Assessments
Promising SCS Context• State and District leadership
– TN leader in state implementation of CCR standards– SCS and TN as models for teacher and leader
effectiveness/evaluation– Board of Education support– High levels of confidence in Superintendent, new
leadership team, principals– Renewed relationships with MSCEA– Clear, common goals—80/90/100%--and Strategic Plan
• External Support– Outside funders—local and national– Increased community interest and engagement
Promising SCS Context• Committed Staff, Students, and Families• Models to learn from– Strong evidence-base– Prior experience w/ Reading First, DBQ,
“workshop model”, etc.– Many schools making progress
Reflection:
• What has the District done in the past to improve literacy?
• How successful were those efforts? What worked, what didn’t?
• Why do you think they were not more successful?
CLIP OVERVIEWWhat is it? How is it different?
CLIP Guiding Principles• We are student centered. We believe all children can learn to high standards and our
work should be focused on ensuring each child achieves to these goals.– Teaching and learning should be aligned to the Common Core State Standards and
the instructional shifts implicit in them.– Goals for student learning are clearly communicated, student learning is regularly
and meaningfully assessed, and students (and families) receive regular feedback– Instruction should be differentiated to meet individual learning needs.
• We believe the classroom is the most important place in the district. To be successful, teachers need:– Clear expectations for performance and regular, quality feedback– High-quality instructional materials and resources (e.g., for planning and assessing)– Meaningful, timely and accurate data to assess student needs and modify
instruction– On-going, job-embedded professional development
• We acknowledge that literacy is a continuum (from decoding and language comprehension to comprehension and deep analysis) and in a Balanced Literacy approach to support its development.– Success requires articulation across grades and meaningful integration across
content areas
CLIP Guiding Principles, cont’d• We believe literacy teaching and learning is a shared responsibility
—– Across grade levels and departments– Across schools– Across organizational levels (e.g., teachers, coaches, principals, district
administrators, policy makers)– With our students, parents and families, community partners, higher
education, and the business community • We have a responsibility to ensure that professional development,
support, and accountability are aligned to our goals and vision for literacy teaching and learning (as defined in the CLIP) and effective teacher and leadership practice more broadly (e.g., TLE and TEM)
• We must continuously monitor progress, reflect, make improvements, and ensure accountability, as appropriate.
• We believe leadership matters—at all levels.
Comprehensive Literacy Improvement Plan (CLIP)• Builds on our strengths; not another change of course, but clearer
commitment to what we already identified as “what works”Unlike earlier efforts:• Acknowledges complexity of literacy learning
– Reading, writing, speaking, listening– Developmental– Different across contexts, genres, content, etc.– Simultaneous need to build basic skills and promote high-levels of CCR
rigor • Clarifies expectations across all levels—
– Locating work within RTI2 framework, and setting expectations at each of core (Tier 1), supplemental (Tier 2) and Tier 3 levels
– Specifying expectations by grade-level bands, content, and role– Emphasizing areas of greatest need, e.g., reading foundations
• Noticing…
SCS students struggle across reading domains—not just vocabulary and comprehension
2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
37.5% 36.8% 37.6%44.8% 45.1% 44.3%
37.7%
Percentage of Students who Scored in Tier 1 on Text Fluency Portion of Istation
Perc
enta
ges
SCS students struggle in writing, across grades and domains (TCAP Writing)
SCS students particularly under-prepared in the basic, foundational skills across grades
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
42.1% 42.1% 40.6% 40.8% 39.4% 43.7% 47.8%56.7%
Percentage of Students who Scored in Tier 1 on Spelling Portion of Istation
Perc
enta
ges
Comprehensive Literacy Improvement PlanUnlike earlier efforts:• Goes deeper—focuses on fidelity of implementation that
stresses quality (e.g., meaningful and effective use of research-based practices)
• Aligns supports and accountability• Implicates all stakeholders
– Literacy learning not just the responsibility of primary grades reading teachers• All grades, all content areas
– Specific responsibilities for coaches, school and district leaders, CBOs, students, parents and families
• Promotes coherence within classrooms, schools, and district
Comprehensive Literacy Improvement Plan
Includes:• Common vision for literacy teaching and learning—what do we
mean by “literacy” and what does effective instruction look like– Instructional time/blocks and designs by grade-level bands– Lesson planning template– Informal classroom “Look-Fors” aligned to TEM and targeted instructional
design• Curricular and instructional tools and supports
– Aligned instructional materials (e.g., core texts, Tier 2 interventions)– CCR-aligned curriculum maps and pacing guides– Sample lesson plans– High-leverage strategies and best practice resources
• School/leader supports– Explicit “non-negotiables”/best practices– Sample schedules
Comprehensive Literacy Improvement PlanTo include:• Improved RTI2 supports
– High-quality Tier 2 and 3 interventions– Streamlined (less labor-intensive) RTI2 tracking
• Aligned assessment vision, instruments, and related resources– Universal screener, diagnostics, formative/benchmarks, summative– Improved data reports and dashboards
• Aligned, high-quality professional development– Tiered support that ensures 1) access for all teachers, 2) differentiated
supports, 3) varied approaches, 4) comprehensive approach, and 5) on-going progress monitoring and continuous improvement
• Continuous progress monitoring
Reflection: How will you communicate the CLIP vision?
• Reflect on your prior experiences with literacy improvement strategies in the District– How does the CLIP sound similar? Different?
• Draft a brief description of the need for/purpose of the CLIP– What might an effective “elevator speech” sound like?– How might you introduce and advocate for the CLIP
with your staff?
Elevator Speech
CLIP EVIDENCE-BASED BEST PRACTICESWhat do we need to do?
PreK-3 Block and Instructional Design• Required time frame– 50 minutes Reading PreK– 90 minutes Reading K-3– 30 minutes Writing K-3
• Grouping structures aligned to purpose
• Gradual release of responsibility: “I do, we do, they do, you do”
• Students actively involved
Reading ELA/Writing
Core (Grade-Level Instruction for All Students)
Whole Group
Explicit instruction on reading skills
and strategies; collaborative
reading of text
Modeled and shared writing;
modeling writing skills
Small Group
Homogeneous and
heterogeneous groupings;
practice and apply skills
Independent and group
writing; practice and apply skills
Whole Group Closure and assessment
Closure, assessment, sharing of
student work
4-5 Block and Instructional Design
• Required time frame– 90 minutes Reading– 30 minutes Writing
• Grouping structures aligned to purpose
• Gradual release of responsibility: “I do, we do, they do, you do”
• Students actively involved
Reading ELA/Writing
Core (Grade-Level Instruction for All Students)
Whole Group
Explicit instruction on skills and strategies;
collaborative reading of text
Explicit instruction on skills and strategies; sharing exemplars
Small Group
Homogeneous and heterogeneous
groupings; practice and apply skills
Engagement in the writing process;
practice and apply skills
Whole Group Closure and assessmentClosure, assessment,
sharing of student work
Middle Grades Block and Instructional Design• Whole Group - 25
minutes• Flexible Grouping – 20
minutes – Teacher – led Small
Group Instruction – Flexible groups/centers
for Independent Practice
• Whole Group – 5 minutes
Reading/ELA/Writing
Core (Grade-Level Instruction for All Students)
Whole Group
I do – teacher modelsWe do - guided practiceTeach/model grade level standards, concepts, skills
Small Group
Teacher led•We do (guided practice)•Teach/model, coach students with similar needs
Flexible groups/centers •They do/You do - independent practice•differentiated content, process, products
Whole Group Closure •Wrap Up what you’ve learned.
High School Instructional Design• Lessons span multiple
days• Gradual release of
responsibility across days
• Reading and writing inextricably linked
Reading Writing ELA
Core (Grade-Level Instruction for All Students)
Complex Texts Writing About Texts
Taught in the Context of Writing
Whole Group Teach/model grade level standards, concepts, skills
I do – teacher modelsWe do - guided practice
Teach/model grade level standards, concepts, skills
I do – teacher modelsWe do - guided practice
Teach/model grade level standards, concepts, skills
I do – teacher modelsWe do - guided practice
Small Group Teacher LedFlexible groups
Teacher LedFlexible groups
Teacher LedFlexible groups
Whole Group Closure - Summarize what you have learned
Closure - Summarize what you have learned
Closure - Summarize what you have learned
Supplemental (Tier 2) Support for Targeted Students
Literacy in the Content Areas• Acknowledges each content area has its own literacy norms, text structures, and
challenges (e.g., genres, vocabulary, concepts, and topics)
• Appreciates vocabulary is strongly related to general reading achievement; includes both direct, explicit instruction and indirect, learning from context (e.g., listening, other reading instruction, reading) to support vocabulary and comprehension learning
• Models and reinforces metacognitive strategies, e.g., self-correction, question generating, visualization, annotation, connections/PK, summarization, graphic organizers
• Focuses explicit vocabulary instruction on words that fall between two tiers--words that students already know and those that are so rare as to be of little utility—and are used across content areas (academic vocabulary)
• Includes explicit instruction (including modeling) and practice in the literacies and content of each discipline
• Leverages writing as a means to learn and develop—how students make sense of, synthesize, summarize, and evaluate their learning (not just to assess content learning)
• Uses discussion and writing prompts to reflect on current understandings, questions, and learning processes help improve content-area learningIn
clud
es e
xplic
it lit
erac
y (a
nd E
LD) l
earn
ing
obje
ctive
s
CLIP IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORTSWhen does the work begin? What does it include?
Complex Change (adapted from Thousand & Villa)
Vision Strategy Skills Resources Monitoring Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions Organization No Followers
Philosophy Strategy Skills Resources Monitoring Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions Organization Confusion
Philosophy Vision Skills Resources Monitoring Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions Organization False Starts
Philosophy Vision Strategy Resources Monitoring Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions Organization Anxiety
Philosophy Vision Strategy Skills Monitoring Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions Organization Frustration
Philosophy Vision Strategy Skills Resources Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions Organization Bitt erness
Philosophy Vision Strategy Skills Resources Monitoring Rewards & Sanctions Organization No
Closure
Philosophy Vision Strategy Skills Resources Monitoring Evaluation Organization Hopelessness
Philosophy Vision Strategy Skills Resources Monitoring Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions No Coordination
Philosophy Vision Strategy Skills Resources Monitoring Evaluation Rewards & Sanctions Organization Success!!
Aligning, Pacing, and Communicating Improvement Goals and Strategies
“As ‘environment, engagement, expectation and encouragement’ critically influence a teacher’s motivation to implement and refine literacy instruction, clear expectations from the principal and the Literacy Leadership Team are needed. …teachers need a broadened definition of literacy, excellent professional learning opportunities and a shared ownership of the literacy plan goals (Meltzer & Ziemba, 2006). …Teachers need… to feel comfortable and supported enough to try new instructional strategies and be willing to persevere when their first attempts fail or are more difficult than they expected. ‘Some teachers will initially give only lip-service to a literacy initiative’ (Meltzer & Ziemba, 2006). When teacher buy-in is inconsistent, morale quickly declines. During these times, unflappable instructional and leadership capacity provides the structure needed to ensure that all stakeholders uphold the common agreements of the school-wide literacy plan.” (Literacy Plan for Kentucky Schools, Kentucky Reading Association: 11)
Short-term Milestones: CLIP Roll-Out
• Teacher Advisory Group, w/ MSCEA (early feedback): January 15, 2015• Central Office, CAO team: January 16, 2015• Principals: January 27, 2015• Assistant Principals: January 29, 2015• PLCs: January 30, 2015• Principal Think Tank: January 15, 2015• SCS School Board: February 10, 2015• Teachers (districtwide): February 16, 2015• External Partners (e.g., publishers, higher ed., consultants): On-going
Longer-term Milestones: CLIP Implementation
J an. 2015 Feb. Mar. April Sep. Oct. Nov. DecMay J une J uly Aug.
CLIP Intro/Roll-Out-District and School Leaders-Teachers-Community/ Potential Partners
Strategic Principal, Coach, and Teacher PD
School-based Planning for 2015-16 (e.g., master scheduling, staffing)
PD: Instructional Design and High-Leverage Practices (foundations)
Development of Aligned 2015-16 Budget (Strategic Resource Allocation)
CLIP Year 1 Implementation Timeline (Draft)
Development/Revision of Instructional tools, Curriculum Maps, etc.
Informal Observations (FoI) and School-based Support
Progress Monitoring, Support (e.g., content-specific coaching), & Accountability
District-level Review/Revision of Assessment Vision/Instrumentation, Data Systems, etc.
Reflection: How will you support early CLIP implementation?
• Generate and record your own questions about the CLIP– What is unclear?– What do you still need to know to support consistent, high-quality
implementation?
• Consider the likely questions/concerns of your staff– What will be unclear?– What will most resonate with them?– What concerns are they most likely to have?
• Reflect on how you manage/lead change– What will you do to prepare for the various stages of CLIP implementation?– What will you do to alleviate anxiety? To get and respond to regular
feedback?– How will you acknowledge and celebrate early progress/small wins?– What will you need to be successful?
