I have had friends ask me what I think of our neighborhood school, and my answer is quite simple. I tell them, "The school is only as good as the teacher your child has that year." I have believed this for a very long time. This stems from my belief that good teaching trumps everything when it comes to student achievement. Analyze all the data you want, throw a bunch of acronyms at people (NCLB, RtI, IEP, DIBELS, FAPE, PBIS, Yada Yada Yada), and race to the top of wherever you want. Yet, everything boils down to good teaching in the classroom.

This opinion is based on watching my own two children go through school and on my 23 years of experience as an educator . Why is it that one child will have a great third grade experience while another one will not? And then in fourth grade, the situation is reversed. They attend the same school with the same curriculum, the same principal, the same assessments, the same materials, supplies, and technology. Yet, their educational experiences differ greatly from year to year.

To a parent, it does not take a PhD from an Ivy League University to figure out why their children's educational experiences are discrepant. Obviously this is the result of the quality of the teacher they have each year. As an educator, I can see the differences in teachers quite clearly so I spend countless hours talking to staff members about good teaching strategies and planning effective (hopefully) staff development activities all for the sake of improved instruction and class management.

I have wondered for a long time if excellent teaching is an innate gift that can't be taught. You either have it or you don't. It sure does not seem as if good teachers are developed in collegiate teacher education programs. Nor do I think outstanding teaching is a self-taught skill.

Well, maybe the best teaching CAN be taught to teachers, and according to a terrific article in the March 7 New York Time Magazine titled "Can Good Teaching be Learned?" excellent teaching is a learned skill.

The article describes the work of Doug Lemov, a teacher, principal, and charter-school founder who has written a book called Teach Like a Champion: The 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. This book, which will be released in April, describes 49 specific teaching techniques (jokingly referred to as the "Lemov Taxonomy") that will make all teachers better.

I have read many books on good teaching and instruction, I have recommended many of these to colleagues of mine, and I have led staff book studies on the best ones. However, if this book turns out to be as good as the NYT article describes, I think it could revolutionize teacher training for years to come. Click on the cover of the book at the Amazon site, and check out the table of contents! Do your teachers need to improve in some or all of these areas?

Maybe the way to make our schools the best in the world is to make our teachers the best in the world.

I can't wait to get my copy!

- Dave Sherman

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 10:05 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

As mentioned in a previous post there has been a recent trend of students facing school disciplinary procedures for off-campus activities and behaviors in cyberspace. It is the goal of this post to discuss 1st Amendment common law as it relates to student cyberspace activities. Because there have been no truly definitive rulings to date on 1st Amendment issues regarding free speech in the schoolosphere, all parties are left to hypothesize about the boundary lines of student cyberspeech. However a review of a trilogy of law cases dating back as far as 1969 that acts as the guidelines for current rulings on student free speech might be of use to all of us.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the earliest of these keystone cases. Tinker specifically focused on the rights high school students have to express free speech. The case involved a school policy stating that students were not allowed to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Three students wore the bands, then refused to take them off when directed to do so by school administrators. The students were subsequently suspended. As a result of the suspension, the students sued the school district claiming their first amendment rights were violated. The court found that students do not give up rights to freedom of speech "at the school house gate." The court further stated that absent a "constitutionally valid reason to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views." From this came the need for a test to determine what comprises a "constitutionally valid reason." Thus the "substantial disruption test" was born. This test outlined the fact that students' speech may only be regulated if it causes a substantial disruption of school activities.Approximately two decades later, in 1986, the issue of students' freedom of speech was raised yet again.

In Bethel School District Number 403 v. Fraser, the court found that schools were allowed to punish students for speech that administrators deemed to be improper, when spoken by students on school grounds or at school functions. In Bethel, Matthew Frazer was suspended for giving a speech at a school-wide assembly because he used a continuing sexual metaphor to describe the candidate he was supporting. Subsequently, Frazer was given a three day suspension and was prohibited from speaking at graduation. After some disagreement between the district and the state appellate courts, the Supreme Court ruled that sexually explicit student speech was not protected under Tinker.

The final case in the trilogy, from a Supreme Court ruling in 1988, is Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. This case centered on the content of a school newspaper. In Hazelwood, students wrote about their experiences with divorce and teen pregnancy; however, the administration forbade it to be printed. The students claimed that their rights to free speech were violated. However, the court ruled that since the newspapers were part of the school program, the students did not have the shelter of the 1st Amendment umbrella.

Despite these three court opinions, there is no clear wide reaching common law ruling regarding students' behaviors as they relate to internet activities or cyber speech. Further complicating the matter is the fact that prior to widespread use of computers and the internet, speech was typically in the same location as the person. In this digital age, quite often a person may be located a continent away from their "speech," as that "speech" may be displayed on a social networking page, in a website, in a blog, in a tweet, or by a message, viewed on a computer, or even sent to a cell phone.Additionally, proponents for new legislation assert the necessity of addressing students' freedom of speech because the degree of disturbance created by students' speech may be much more broad than in the past. Widespread use of digital technology provides students with a much larger forum to discuss their views than was possible before the digital age. With several keystrokes, students are now able to project their views to an unlimited audience for an unlimited time period.

Until the judicial system addresses current issues surrounding free speech as it relates to students and their cyber activities, there will continue to be questions for us all as to what constitutes acceptable behavior for students as it relates to freedom of speech. As we progress further into our digital lives, it becomes more imperative that we have a judicially determined set of parameters addressing students' freedom of speech. Until that day, teachers, students, and administrators must continue to agree that they may disagree.

For a more inclusive list of relevant common law cases, or if you wish to send us a relevant case from your area please contact us at robert.hancock@selu.edu.

Anita Dubusdevalempre, Robert Hancock, and Julie Matte.

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 9:51 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

When I think back to my days in the classroom the most important moments happened when I looked past the hardened sneer of a difficult student to see them as they really were. It turns out they were rarely what they seemed on the surface. Somewhere deep inside them there was something more than the negative image that they projected to the outside world.

Of course, this inner spirit was often walled off and starved; and the more a student needed my help, the more likely they were to push me away. It seems the one's who needed love the most were always the hardest to love. There were many, many days I lost sight of my students as people. I gave in and saw them as they wanted to be seen and not as they truly were.

I believe it is essential for teachers to have the heart of 'Don Quixote', the Man of La Mancha. Don Quixote saw the beauty in life; and he saw the inner beauty of the people around him including Aldonza, a hard-hearted and angry whore. Quixote sees her as Dulcinea, a virtuous lady, and treats her as such. Aldonza rejects Quixote's vision of her. She insists she is nothing. She has given up on herself but Don Quixote has not. She can deal with people's anger and scorn but not with Don Quixote's tenderness and respect.

Quixote's response? "Never deny that you are Dulcinea!" He sees the best in her.

I wish every teacher could see the best that lies hidden in their students. I wish every teacher would do their best to bring that 'best' to the surface. There is a seed in each of us that needs to be nourished. Sometimes a teacher believing in a student when that student doesn't even believe in themselves is all the nourishment it takes to have that seed grow and flower.

The classroom is a complex organism. It is composed of many, many unique individuals, each with their own set of experiences, each on a journey to find their place in the world. It's easy to lose the heart of Don Quixote and to simply deal with the world as we see it. There are so many disappointments and betrayals that bring us to the point of asking, "Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe believing in the nobility of others is just a silly, romantic notion."

Near the end of his life even the Man of La Mancha lost faith in his own quest to see others as their best selves.

In fact, it is Aldonza, the most hardened of souls, that finally begins to blossom. She starts to believe in herself as Quixote has believed in her. She sees that she is 'worthy' of respect. She feels the good soul within her. It is Aldonza, the student, who revives Quixote, the teacher, from his despair.

Don Quixote has touched the soul of Aldonza. She will never be the same. No longer a whore. She is Dulcinea, the lady.

May the heart of La Mancha burn in the heart of every teacher. May we open our eyes to the Dulcinea's and the Quixote's that enter our classrooms every day. May we believe in them and may we help them see the goodness within them.

pete

Cross Posted at Ed Tech Journeys

Note: Photo by Anfal Al-Obaidley

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 2:11 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Ok, so we all know someone or know someone who knows someone who took an online course. We all see the increasing popularity of universities like Capella, Walden, and the University of Phoenix.

With regard to school principals, the real question is can a principal candidate with online credentials get a job? The findings might surprise you. We recently sent out a survey to 500 human resource manager to understand the acceptability of online credentials for principal candidates. Among other things we found the following:

The study found that principal preparation programs offered online are at best only somewhat accepted by those folks who vet k-12 principal candidate. This is an interesting finding because many brick-and-mortar programs offer part or all of their principal preparation coursework online. At the University of North Carolina Wilmington we have been offering our Masters of School Administration as a hybrid program for years. Starting in the Fall 2010 we will offer our Masters of School Administration Licensure Program 100% online. However when we surveyed our graduates from the past two years, nearly all of then had administrative positions if they wanted one and all were gainfully employed in k-12 education. There seems to be perception / reality mismatch here?

The real question is how can universities that offer online principal preparation courses that are hybrid or totally online be rigorous, of high quality, and be desirable by our local school districts? What can universities do to improve the image of online courses and degrees?

Jayson W. Richardson
University of North Carolina Wilmington

Note: The results of this study have been submitted as two articles. We will let you know when they are published!

Richardson, J.W., McLeod, S., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (under review). How do school districts treat K-12 principals and principal candidates with online credentials?

Richardson, J.W., McLeod, S., & Garrett Dikkers, A. (under review). Perceptions of online credentials for school principals,

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 7:28 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

I would like to start this post with a short anecdote:

A friend of mine called me this fall and told me that he was feeling very downtrodden. He had a new superintendent who was not that tech savvy. However, he had stopped by this one particular afternoon all excited and holding a new article about technology. He came into my friend's office waving it and saying that he had a new technology of which he had just learned. He then asked my friend, "Have you heard of 'The Google'?" My friend almost cried.

But do most people really understand what Google has become? The search engine is an important component of the company but it is now sharing the stage with other tools. Our school district now has a Google Apps account- the Education version. What does this mean? In short, it will allow us to have Google Docs, Gmail, Google Sites, Calendar, Google Video, and more! All of them will have a URL that will start with our district name instead of Google. The next question that many people ask is, Why is this important? or, Why are you embarking on this? The main reason comes down to one word and that is COLLABORATION---a 21st century skill of which all students need to be familiar.

Up until the last few years you would have to have a network with file servers in order to be able to share documents and other pieces of information with colleagues. The problem with this is that once you are outside of "the network," you then have to find a way back in to retrieve your files. This meant cumbersome things like Citrix or VPN. It never really gave you the same experience as if you were actually at your office or classroom and then inside the network.

A second reason is because sharing things with students as well as student to student sharing has always been cumbersome and filled with problems. However, now we are entering an age of cloud computing. This means, for example, I can create a Google Doc and share it with whomever I want in the world. I can also access that Google Doc anywhere in the world. By sharing, I can then share with students, colleagues, and even people outside of the network. You don't have to email the document and then wait for it to come back to continue to work on it! All the editing is live. Again the word is COLLABORATE. Consider the endless possibilities of the global learning and collaboration that can take place between teachers and students!

The possibilities are endless and it opens up many doors including allowing the whole teaching community to have full access to all their files and information 24/7. We all know students (and teachers) who do work at all hours of the night. With cloud computing, this is now easier and the whole learning community can feel connected at any hour of the day and night.

James Yap and Teresa Ivey

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 2:02 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

"The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights." -John AshCroft

One would be hard pressed to ignore the recent developments of alleged violation of student privacy in the Lower Merion school district in Pennsylvania. Although, the district denies the charges, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit allege that a school vice-principal attempted to discipline their son on the basis of a photo taken from a web camera on the student's laptop while the student was at home. These cameras, according to the district were used as a "security feature" to track stolen laptops. They allege that at no time did an administrator have access to the tracking software. Yet, the plaintiffs allege that it was a vice-principal that approached their son with an accusation of drug use and there is an ongoing investigation into the case by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The events of the case get more tangled as mainstream media and the blogosphere explore the issue and reveal that the student has materials on his low-privacy rated social networking sites that could potentially both harm and or help his case as to if the alleged photo were accurate or not. The resulting mess is a ball of 1st and 4th amendment issues that will have us all watching this case for many years and will probably pay for several sons and daughters of the involved lawyers to attend the best of online educational institutions.

I can think of no more important legal issues facing educational technology today than the balance of free speech, free thought, privacy and the boundary of the schoolosphere, which is I think a neat term to describe the sphere of influence of a school.This sphere of influence has obviously moved beyond the walls of the schoolhouse into the digital world in which most of us now spend a significant amount of time. It is clear that administrators, teachers, and students are blundering around cyberspace with very different ideas of what is acceptable. We must come to a consensus as to what constitutes boundary areas of the schoolosphere if we are to succeed in a successful transition to a digital world.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Special thanks to Becky Parton, Julie Matte and Anita duBusdeValempre for their thoughtful insights into this issue.

Robert Hancock
Robert.Hancock@selu.edu

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 1:16 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

For as long as I can remember educators have tried to figure out how to infuse more technology into our daily school lives. There has been great strides forward, promising practices, extraordinary new systems that have profoundly improved teaching and learning.

There has also been stubborn resistance for a million reasons.

But that's public education for you. We are, after all, an extension of both democracy and the community of oft-conflicting values within which we exist. Issues come and go: desegregation, equal access, A Nation at Risk, back to basics, "accountability", economic downturns. We ride a wild pendulum. Megatrends. Sometimes the pendulum swings from the force of legislative fiat, sometimes a judge's decision, sometimes a global event, and sometimes... just because.

So why hasn't this Supreme Court decision gotten your attention?

If Promethean really wants their products on the walls of every classroom in America-- as cool as that would be-- there is now a frighteningly clear path on how they could make that happen. Or maybe Apple wants their IPads in the hands of every student in your school district.

Or maybe some group just wants the library thinned out a little-- like specific books off the shelves. Or maybe they want you to go in a different direction with your science curriculum, a specific textbook adoption that espouses creationism... intelligent design. Or maybe they want us to return to separate and un-equal. Or maybe the stone age.

Not to be paranoid, but the Supreme Court has just cleared the path for elections to be bankrolled by the highest bidder. Any corporation, any agency, any national or international alliance can now infuse unlimited amounts of cash to see that their advocates are placed in the public offices that are most advantageous to their cause. Presidential initiatives- like health care reform-- can now be thoroughly swift-boated by insurance companies. Senators and congressmen can now be openly sponsored by corporations and foreign powers alike.

And since your school district is governed by an "elected" Board of Directors, they can be bought too. Democracy, public education, our children's future and the future of our nation is now, quite literally, for sale.

Bill Moyers wrote:

"No wonder people have lost faith in politicians, parties and in our leadership. The power of money drives cynicism deep into the heart of every level of government. Everything, and everyone, comes with a price tag attached: from a seat at the table in the White House to a seat in Congress, to the fate of health care reform, our environment, and efforts to restrain Wall Street's greed and prevent another financial catastrophe."

I'm glad he said that and it's not just me.

Sometimes school leadership is looking out over the horizon and seeing the storm clouds forming before a lightening bolt levels the building.

Are you watching?

Kevin W. Riley
El Milagro Weblog

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 1:29 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

This entry has been cross posted to Sentiments On Common Sense.

I just returned from a trip to the U.S. to hire some teachers for my school. Those trips are grueling, intense and a chance to examine my personal educational beliefs at a core level.

We move out on these trips with great purpose.

We work in teams.

We talk. We collaborate. We commiserate. We come home exhausted.

We interview 15-18 teachers a day and make some very basic decisions (to offer a contract or say "no thank you") which are VERY important decisions about who will be the teachers in some of our classrooms this next academic year.

Before we went out on our recruiting trips this year, I had our administrative team review an article from Independent School Management titled "Why the Worst (and Best) Teachers Matter". Unfortunately it is a copyrighted article not available on the web unless you are member of ISM, but I will quote from the article which focuses the reader on the aphorism that "a rising tide lifts all boats" is not necessarily true day in and day out in the classrooms. The author notes that "bad" teachers also have an effect on the good teachers in the schools in which we work. Evidence points to the fact that..

Relationships among people in an organization matter a great deal.

Simply put, students get higher marks when both their teacher and their teacher's peers are above average; when teachers peers are lower in ability and effectiveness, students achievement levels reflect that.

Technically speaking....

...the study notes that "replacing one peer (teacher) wiht another has one standard deviation higher value-added will increase her students tests scores by 0.86 percent of a standard deviation." That improvement is noted for reading; for mathematics improvement "is associated with a 3.98% of a standard deviation increase in math test scores."

Noteworthy? I think so! In fact as I read the article, and did as the author suggested and examine this trend in it's entirety, I believe it confirms just what I believed for some time. Teachers, like students, benefit from direct learning from their peers, and that learning and professional improvement result from exposure to better peers. It is probably a "no-duh!" for many administrators out there when I state that it really has nothing to do with the school, and the organization and more about the quality of the teachers in the classrooms. Great schools, as common sense would tell you, have bad teachers and bad, or poor performing schools have some good teachers. In the Atlantic Monthly article "What Makes are Great Teacher?" author Amanda Ripley notes in her article detailing the "New Teacher Project" that,

For years, the secrets to great teaching have seemed more like alchemy than science, a mix of motivational mumbo jumbo and misty-eyed tales of inspiration and dedication.

She goes on to share that...

But we have never identified excellent teachers in any reliable, objective way. Instead, we tend to ascribe their gifts to some mystical quality that we can recognize and revere--but not replicate. The great teacher serves as a hero but never, ironically, as a lesson.

Noting that...

Parents have always worried about where to send their children to school; but the school, statistically speaking, does not matter as much as which adult stands in front of their children. Teacher quality tends to vary more within schools--even supposedly good schools--than among schools.

So, what should we be looking for out there? What kinds of traits do we look for, and HOW does my team of administrators gleen realization of these traits from brief 15-30 minute interviews. My take as always been to find learners, not learned teachers. I have always looked for teachers who have an innate joy and love of life. I look for teachers who have demonstrated leadership and goal aquisition in the past. I look for teachers who have perserverved, not through hardship, but toward a single-minded high standard for the student learning experience. My common sense is once again confirmed as noted by Ripley when she quotes the Journal of Positive Psychology.

In a study published in The Journal of Positive Psychology in November 2009, they evaluated 390 Teach for America instructors before and after a year of teaching. Those who initially scored high for "grit"--defined as perseverance and a passion for long-term goals, and measured using a short multiple-choice test--were 31 percent more likely than their less gritty peers to spur academic growth in their students. Gritty people, the theory goes, work harder and stay committed to their goals longer. (Grit also predicts retention of cadets at West Point, Duckworth has found.)

Interestingly this hit a nerve with me. It makes a lot of common sense.

Grit. Stamina. A learner. Flexible. Adaptable. Grit.

Technorati Tags: recruiting, hiring, great teachers, bad teachers, supervision and evaluation, Atlantic Monthly, What Makes a Great Teacher?

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/68898571@N00/3562074395

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 12:00 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

"What do you mean I only got a 2? They were all on task. They were all looking at me."

It's no longer about the eyes and whether or not the students are looking at the teacher or have their books open. Student engagement is about the mind - engaging the mind and expressing it through dialogue with peers. Dialogue that is not intended just to answer the teacher's questions, but dialogue that is focused on a particular topic and includes accountable talk. We call it think, pair, share, turn and talk, Socratic seminar, etc., but it boils down to having everyone accountable for the thinking, the discussion and, ultimately, the learning. Not only does it engage students who may otherwise not be inclined to do the work, it helps those students who may not understand the work to learn it by doing it with peers.

My lesson feedback sheets include three rubrics - one for rigor, one for student and teacher engagement, and one for clear expectations. The rubric for student and teacher engagement forces teachers to think about how students contribute, augment, and assess their knowledge and understanding of a particular lesson or topic. To receive a 5, the highest score on the rubric, there must be evidence that all students participate in the lesson through engaging their minds and their voices using either simple engagement strategies such as turn & talk and think, pair, share, or other, more complex student engagement strategies such as Socratic seminars and, students are using accountable talk on the focused topic. Below a 3 on the rubric, there is no evidence of student engagement strategies regardless of how focused their eyes are on the teacher or whether or not their books are open to the correct page. So, even if all of the students appear "on task" it doesn't necessarily mean their minds are engaged, and those who know how to avoid being called on are masters at looking on task even if their minds are far from the task at hand. In other words, if they only "appear" to be on task, it is a 2.

While I thought my rubric was slightly progressive, after all, there is much more to it than just looking engaged, I realized after listening to Scott McLeod's presentation on the need to prepare students for the digital, global age, that this "new" aspect of student engagement that I am referring to in my rubric is a model of student engagement for the industrial age, not for the digital age. While we are still trying to get teachers to release the power of learning to the students, we are currently doing it in a two-dimensional, very outdated manner. And the fact that we are just now looking at student engagement models that put us actually behind the times is truly pathetic.

Now think about student engagement that involves discussing and learning the work in the classroom from an expert outside of the classroom- not just with the students physically next to each other - without leaving the room and students literally having the information at their fingertips. That is a digital age model of student engagement. What should be on my rubric for student engagement in 2010 is: Students interact with experts and/or students outside of their own classroom via video, skype, texting, e-mailing, surfing, and/or blogging. This type of student engagement not only involves obtaining the information, it involves thinking about where to find it and how to access it.

I mentioned to my tech specialist that I think we should consider looking at a classroom set of the new iPads that will be available this spring. Her response was, "Like we need to give them more opportunities to surf the 'net. They already do too much of that when they should be doing something else." But that is exactly what we need them for; to give students power to find the knowledge they are seeking. Now I know what she and other teachers are thinking: How are we going to monitor whether or not students are on task when they have an iPad in their hands? My answer to that is the same way we monitor whether or not they are reading along or doing the same math problems. We still circulate around the room, interact with the students, and do the turn and talk, or share with your neighbor to engage student discussion. But now, the quality of the information has changed. It's become enriched by sources outside of the room. My rubric would still include active participation, but it would include the use of technology. That is, the students using the technology, not the teacher.

Nancy Flynn 2/19/10

Posted by Nancy Flynn at 9:47 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

How many times have you made a decision, let others know about the decision, and then get annoyed when others don't entirely buy into your decision. Even worse, they buy into your decision, but the "new direction" falters within a short period of time? It's frustrating and yet all so common. One of my former colleagues noted, "the only person that likes change is a baby with a new diaper."

Strategic communication is a key component in translating decisions into action. It is helpful to me to remember that I've been thinking and working the issue in my head for a relatively long time. I've brought others into the issue discussion. That small group of people also buys into the idea and have improved on the original idea. Once you have decided to take action on a decision, oftentimes you will have to communicate it to somebody else. It may be a co-worker or it may be an entire organizational unit.

I've learned some short tips that might help increase your effectiveness in translating the decisions into action:

1. What is the key message that I want to deliver? It should be thought of as a bumper sticker or something you can see on Twitter (140 characters).

2. How do I enlist others to communicate in language that resonates with each implementer so that everybody views the action as an opportunity, not a threat.

3. What else do I need to do and other people need to do to celebrate and support this commitment?

4. What is the frequency that I want to deliver this message (you'll get tired of hearing yourself saying the same thing over and over again)

5. What are the modes that I plan to use to deliver this message? It may be written, oral, web based, video, large group, small group, or a combination of all of these modes of communication

Ok-your turn. What are some tools and techniques you have used to better translate decisions into action?

All the best,

Chris

Posted by LeaderTalk Contributor at 7:55 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)