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/80-90-100updated/?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
Percent Proficient
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.
100.0
90.0
91.2%
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
33.6%
20.0
10.0
0.0
2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050
Year
Math Proficiency in Grades 3-8 Improving,
but Not Fast Enough
Percent Proficient
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.
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
2014
90.3%
35.1%
2017
2020
2023
2026
Year
2029
2032
2035
2038
Districtwide Attendance
This 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 Time
Top 5 Improved Schools
by School Level
However, several schools dramatically improved attendance the week before
the holiday break (as compared to last year).
Elementary
School
Hamilton
Elementary
Cordova
Elementary
Shady Grove
Elementary
A. B. Hill
Elementary
Wells Station
Elementary
K-8 School
Cummings
School
13-14 to
14-15 YTD
Difference
7.8
6.3
4.6
4.4
4.3
Middle
School
Chickasaw
Middle
Germantown
Middle
Hickory Ridge
Middle
Kirby Middle
Havenview
Middle
13-14 to 14-15 YTD
Difference
3.9
13-14 to
14-15 YTD
Difference
High School
13-14 to
14-15 YTD
Difference
5.8
Whitehaven High
4.6
4.7
Hamilton High
5.2
3.6
Manassas High
3.9
3.1
Hillcrest High
Memphis Health
Careers Academy
3.6
2.7
3.4
Attendance: Increasing Instructional Time
Top 5 Improved Schools
by School Level
And several schools dramatically improved attendance the week
after the holiday break (as compared to last year).
Elementary
School
Carnes
Elementary
Winchester
Elementary
Campus
Elementary
Idlewild
Elementary
Scenic Hills
Elementary
13-14 to
13-14 to
14-15 YTD
14-15 YTD Middle School
Differenc
Difference
e
High School
13-14 to
14-15 YTD
Difference
4.5
Treadwell
Middle School
Germantown
Middle
2.2
Kirby Middle
2.7
Hillcrest High
Martin Luther King
Transition Center
2.1
Geeter Middle
Hickory Ridge
Middle
1.9
Manassas High
4.5
1.9
Middle College High
2.2
6.8
1.6
5.3
Whitehaven High
7.2
3.0
7.0
5.6
Attendance: Increasing Instructional Time
12.3% of all district absences to date in 2014-15
resulted from suspensions
Suspensions
Other
(74,146 suspension days out of 604,705 total days absent)
Attendance: Increasing Instructional Time
The 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 Semester
1st Semester
40th-Day Suspension
40th-Day Suspension
Students
Students
Enrollment
Rate
Enrollment
Rate
Suspended
Suspended
2013-14
in 2013-14
2014-15
in 2014-15
2013-14
2014-15
12,902
117,428
11.0
13,637
116,013
11.8
Attendance: Increasing Instructional Time
Several schools reduced suspension rates for first semester of this school
year (2014-15), compared to the first semester of last year (2013-14).
Elementary
Top 5 Improved Schools
by School Level
School
LaRose
Elementary
13-14 to
13-14 to
14-15
14-15
Middle School Semester
Semester 1
1
Decrease
Decrease
High School
13-14 to 1415
Semester 1
Decrease
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
4.5
Georgian Hills
Middle
2.8
Hillcrest High
9.4
2.5
Memphis Health
Careers Academy
5.1
South Park
Elementary
Sherwood
Elementary
K-8 School
4.3
13-14 to 1415 Semester
1 Decrease
Kirby Middle
Attendance: Increasing Instructional Time
Top 5 Improved Schools
by School Level
Some schools are currently on track to beat their overall
attendance rate from last year.
Elementary
School
Egypt
Elementary
Alcy
Elementary
Whitehaven
Elementary
Vollentine
Elementary
Kingsbury
Elementary
K-8 School
Cummings
School
13-14 to 1415 YTD
Difference
Middle
School
Germantown
Middle
Treadwell
Middle
School
1.4
1.3
1.2
Kirby Middle
Geeter
Middle
Oakhaven
Middle
1.0
1.0
13-14 to 14-15 YTD
Difference
0.7
13-14 to 1415 YTD
Difference
2.4
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
High School
MCS Prep Southwest
B. T. Washington
High
Whitehaven
High
Hillcrest High
Cordova High
School
13-14 to 14-15
YTD Difference
2.9
2.1
1.8
1.7
0.9
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
DEA Reading/LA Proficiency Rates
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
51%
45%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
42%
36%
45%
43%
39%
38%
49%
43%
34% 35%
29%
32%
35%
38% 38%
31%
31%
24%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Test A
Grade 8 Grades 3-8 English I
Test B
English II English III
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 Assessment
The following schools showed the most improvement in
percentage of students proficient or advanced from Test A to Test B
in reading/language arts:
School
Ridgeway Middle
Douglass Elementary-Middle
LaRose Elementary
Elementary
Craigmont Middle
Reading/Language Arts
Getwell Elementary
School
English I
Carver High
Craigmont High
Manassas High
Trezevant High
Kirby High
Test A
37.14
27.83
13.69
31.04
26.97
Test B
51.83
42.15
27.78
44.74
40.35
Change
14.69
14.33
14.09
13.70
13.38
Test A
5.45
29.85
15.46
10.29
24.30
Test B
58.49
65.43
41.84
31.30
44.30
Change
53.04
35.58
26.37
21.00
20.00
Discovery Education Assessment
The following schools showed the most improvement in
percentage of students proficient or advanced from Test A to
Test B in reading/language arts:
English II
English III
School
Westwood High
Raleigh Egypt High
Douglass High
Manassas High
Cordova High
Test A
13.95
14.77
31.11
35.11
59.14
Test B
39.76
39.58
51.82
44.79
68.12
Change
25.81
24.82
20.71
9.69
8.98
School
Cordova High
Northwest Prep Academy
Northeast Prep Academy
Memphis Health Careers Acad
Kingsbury High
Test A
22.54
12.90
0.00
8.33
11.35
Test B
49.47
35.29
19.44
25.00
26.94
Change
26.93
22.39
19.44
16.67
15.59
Discovery Education Assessment
School
Southwest Prep
Academy
Geeter Middle
Riverview K-8
B. T. Washington High
Trezevant High
School
Springdale
Elementary
A
B
Change
24.59 74.64
50.05
Ridgeway Middle
Highland Oaks
Middle
35.09 57.40
22.31
30.78 52.70
21.92
Geeter Middle
13.21 34.60
21.39
Craigmont Middle
24.50 43.60
19.11
Test A Test B
6.45
36.47
60.00
11.34
42.68
47.06
76.62
91.67
32.53
61.39
Change
40.61
40.15
31.67
21.19
18.71
Algebra II
Algebra I
Elementary
Mathematics
The following schools showed the most improvement in
percentage of students proficient or advanced from Test A to Test B
Test Test
in mathematics:
School
Oakhaven High
Memphis Health
Careers Acad
Cordova High
B. T. Washington High
Middle College High
Test A Test B
14.00 39.58
0.00
15.25
0.00
69.12
12.50
27.29
10.61
79.41
Change
25.58
12.50
12.04
10.61
10.29
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
Why do we need it?
CLIP BACKGROUND
•
•
•
•
•
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
Average SCS 10th Grader:
CCR/CCSS Expectation:
1300L
SCS Students Making Progress in Literacy
Learning
80
Percent Proficient*
70
56.0
60
50
40
49.1
42.8
32.4
30
20
19.9
49.4
48.6
Grades 3-8
41.3
32.0
33.6
22.8
21.9
2013
2014
English I
English II
English III
10
0
2012
*Includes Alternative
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?
What is it? How is it different?
CLIP OVERVIEW
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
Percentage of Students who Scored in Tier 1
on Text Fluency Portion of Istation
100%
90%
80%
Percentages
70%
60%
50%
40%
37.5%
36.8%
37.6%
2nd
3rd
4th
44.8%
45.1%
44.3%
5th
6th
7th
37.7%
30%
20%
10%
0%
8th
SCS students struggle in writing, across grades and
domains (TCAP Writing)
SCS students particularly under-prepared in the basic, foundational
skills across grades
Percentage of Students who Scored in Tier 1
on Spelling Portion of Istation
100%
90%
80%
Percentages
70%
56.7%
60%
50%
42.1%
42.1%
40.6%
40.8%
39.4%
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
40%
43.7%
47.8%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6th
7th
8th
Comprehensive Literacy Improvement Plan
Unlike 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 Plan
To 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) ongoing 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?
What do we need to do?
CLIP EVIDENCE-BASED BEST PRACTICES
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
Closure and
assessment
Closure,
assessment,
sharing of
student work
Whole Group
4-5 Block and Instructional Design
• Required time frame
Reading
– 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
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
Closure and assessment
Closure, assessment,
sharing of student
work
Whole Group
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
Reading/ELA/Writing
Core (Grade-Level Instruction for All Students)
I do – teacher models
We do - guided practice
Whole Group
Teach/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.
• Whole Group – 5
minutes
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
Teach/model grade
level standards,
concepts, skills
Teach/model grade
level standards,
concepts, skills
Teach/model grade
level standards,
concepts, skills
I do – teacher models
We do - guided practice
I do – teacher models
We do - guided practice
I do – teacher models
We do - guided practice
Small Group
Teacher Led
Flexible groups
Teacher Led
Flexible groups
Teacher Led
Flexible groups
Whole Group
Closure Summarize what you
have learned
Closure Summarize what you
have learned
Closure Summarize what you
have learned
Whole Group
Supplemental (Tier 2) Support for Targeted Students
Includes explicit literacy (and ELD) learning
objectives
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 learning
When does the work begin? What does it include?
CLIP IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORTS
Complex Change (adapted from Thousand & Villa)
Aligning, Pacing, and Communicating
Improvement Goals and Strategies
Vision
Philosophy
Strategy
Skills
Resources
Monitoring
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Organization
No Followers
Strategy
Skills
Resources
Monitoring
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Organization
Confusion
Skills
Resources
Monitoring
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Organization
False Starts
Resources
Monitoring
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Organization
Anxiety
Monitoring
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Organization
Frustration
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Organization
Bitterness
Rewards & Sanctions
Organization
Philosophy
Vision
Philosophy
Vision
Strategy
Philosophy
Vision
Strategy
Skills
Philosophy
Vision
Strategy
Skills
Resources
Philosophy
Vision
Strategy
Skills
Resources
No
Monitoring
Closure
Philosophy
Vision
Strategy
Skills
Resources
Monitoring
Evaluation
Organization
Philosophy
Vision
Strategy
Skills
Resources
Monitoring
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Philosophy
Vision
Strategy
Skills
Resources
Monitoring
Evaluation
Rewards & Sanctions
Hopelessness
No
Coordination
Organization
Success!!
“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
CLIP Year 1 Implementation Timeline (Draft)
PD: Instructional Design and High-Leverage
Practices (foundations)
Development of Aligned 2015-16
Budget (Strategic Resource
Allocation)
Strategic Principal, Coach, and Teacher PD
Progress Monitoring, Support (e.g.,
content-specific coaching), &
Accountability
Informal Observations (FoI)
and School-based Support
Jan. 2015
Feb.
Mar.
April
May
June
July
District-level Review/Revision of Assessment
Vision/Instrumentation, Data Systems, etc.
CLIP Intro/Roll-Out
-District and School
Leaders
-Teachers
-Community/
Potential Partners
School-based Planning for
2015-16 (e.g., master
scheduling, staffing)
Development/Revision of Instructional
tools, Curriculum Maps, etc.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec
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?