Professional learning · Leaders, Coaches · 70 minutes
Headlines From Year Three
Leaders write the success story and the failure story of their own AI or tech initiative three years out, then run a pre-mortem on the failure so they can build guardrails before launch.
Most initiative plans describe only the future where everything works. In this session, leadership teams write two headlines about their own campus AI or technology initiative, dated three years from now: one where they got it right and one where it went wrong. Then they run a pre-mortem, the technique psychologist Gary Klein developed: assume the failure headline came true and explain why. Teams sort the reasons through TCEA's five-question leadership check and turn the biggest risks into guardrails with owners and check dates, before the initiative has a chance to fail.
In this packet
- Handout A: Worked Example: Pecan Creek ISD (reading)
- Handout B: Pre-Mortem Risk Map (organizer)
- Handout C: Two Headlines and a Guardrail Plan (worksheet)
TCEA ELE indicators
- L1.1 I know how to create and communicate a compelling vision for technology integration in the school.
- L1.2 I can develop strategic technology plans that align with educational trends and community needs.
- L4.2 I can develop policies that support equitable access to technology and digital resources.
- AI2.1 I know how to apply ethical principles when using or developing AI for education.
- C5.2 I can facilitate productive discussions and problem-solving sessions.
Full facilitator guide: mglearn.github.io/eles/activities/headlines-from-year-three.html
Handout A for Headlines From Year Three
Worked Example: Pecan Creek ISD
A fictional district and campus. Read both headlines, then notice how the pre-mortem reasons map to the five questions.
1The initiative (fall 2026): Live Oak Middle School in Pecan Creek ISD will give grades 6–8 English teachers an AI writing-feedback assistant. Students paste in a draft and get comments on organization and evidence before a teacher conference.
2Success headline (September 2029): "Live Oak Students Revise More, and Can Explain Why." Lede: Three years after Live Oak Middle began using AI feedback on drafts, English teachers say students bring more second drafts to conferences and can explain which suggestions they rejected and why. The campus publishes a short family guide in English and Spanish each fall explaining what the tool sees and keeps.
3Failure headline (September 2029): "Live Oak's AI Writing Tool Quietly Dropped After Two Years. Teachers Say No One Asked What It Was For." Lede: Pecan Creek ISD did not renew the writing assistant this summer. Teachers describe a tool students used to polish final drafts at the last minute, while conference time shrank and the campus never agreed on what improvement would look like.
4Pre-mortem reasons the team wrote (sample): We never defined what better writing would look like, so no one could say whether it worked. Students used it at the end instead of mid-draft. Training was one after-school session. Students without home internet could only use it in class. Families heard about it from a social media post, not from us. Nobody checked whether the feedback was weaker for multilingual writers. The contract renewed automatically before anyone reviewed it.
5Mapped to the five questions: Vision: no shared definition of better writing. Evidence: no baseline, no review before renewal. Instruction: used for polishing, not revising; thin training. Who might be left out: students without home internet; multilingual writers. Families: learned about it secondhand. Before the pre-mortem, the team's plan had nothing in the last two rows.
6One guardrail: Early-warning signal: by November, fewer than half of sampled drafts show a revision made after AI feedback. Guardrail: teachers schedule AI feedback mid-draft, and students attach a two-line note on one suggestion they used and one they rejected. Owner: the ELA department chair. Check date: the week before Thanksgiving break.
7Rewritten success lede: "...and a sample of student drafts shows more mid-draft revisions each semester, multilingual writers report the feedback is useful as often as their classmates do, and families reviewed the tool in two languages before it launched."
Handout B for Headlines From Year Three
Pre-Mortem Risk Map
Sort every pre-mortem reason into a row. Empty rows are findings. Then complete the last three columns for your top three risks.
| Five-question lens | Pre-mortem reasons that fit here | Early-warning signal we'd see first | Guardrail (what we do now) | Owner + check date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. What is the vision? | ||||
| 2. What evidence will guide us? | ||||
| 3. What changes in instruction? | ||||
| 4. Who might be left out? | ||||
| 5. How will families understand the change? | ||||
| Doesn't fit a lens |
Handout C for Headlines From Year Three
Two Headlines and a Guardrail Plan
Date both headlines three years from today. Name the people and what changed for them, not the tool.
Our initiative in one sentence (what, for whom, starting when):
SUCCESS headline + two-sentence lede (who, what, when, what changed):
FAILURE headline + two-sentence lede:
Which five-question row was empty before the pre-mortem? What does that tell us?
Our top three guardrails (signal, action, owner, date):
From the other team (stranger test): "The evidence that would prove your success headline is..."
Rewritten SUCCESS lede that names evidence we will actually collect:
How we'll explain this initiative to families in one plain sentence: