Tiered Student Leadership Development for [School]
Client School [School]Prepared by Caleb ChanOrganisation [Partner]Levels Sec 1–3
01 — Context & Design Rationale
Why Vector?
[School] is seeking a tiered leadership development programme across Sec 1–3. This proposal sets out how [Partner] will design and deliver it — anchored around the Student Leadership Challenge framework.
Schools that develop leadership capacity across all students — not just those who hold a title — produce young people better equipped to contribute to their communities, adapt to an uncertain future, and influence the world beyond their school gates. The "Vector" journey is designed to outlast the initial engagement and embed this capacity sustainably in [School]'s culture, teaching staff, and student cohorts year after year.
Our Core Belief
Leadership is influence, not position. Every student can learn to lead — starting with how they show up in everyday moments, regardless of whether they hold a formal role.
CCE Alignment & Well-being
The programme maps to CCE targets (Identity, Relationships, Choices). The SLC framework serves as the behavioural engine for key social-emotional skills and positive psychology principles (such as PERMA's vectors of positive relationships and accomplishment).
Design Principles
How This Programme is Built
⏱ Time Allocation
8–12 hours per cohort/tier
The brief specifies an 8–12 hour guideline per cohort or tier. Vector is designed within this envelope: ~6h of staff PD for Tier 1, ~7h with [Partner] for Tier 2, and ~13h with [Partner] for Tier 3.
Tier 1 counts staff training hours rather than student contact hours — this is intentional. The model reaches all students through trained teachers, not through direct external facilitation at scale.
Tiers 2 and 3 deliver [Partner]-facilitated workshops alongside school-owned project work, council campaigns, and reflection tasks. School-driven hours are not counted in the totals above.
🔀 Blended Model
[Partner] delivers; [School] embeds
Combining framework-led training and workshops with school-driven engagement — VIA projects, campaigns, reflection tasks, council check-ins — for a scalable and self-sustaining curriculum beyond the contract period.
👩🏫 Educator Partnership & Calibration
Teachers are active co-deliverers, backed by quality tracking
Tier 1 is deliberately designed as a teacher capacity-building initiative: [Partner] trains staff, who then deliver student-facing lessons during curriculum time.
To ensure high delivery quality, the program introduces regular check-ins and performance calibration. This includes deploying data analytics to track student framework utilization and monitor faculty sentiment toward the SLC track.
📈 Developmental Progression
Increasing leadership complexity from Sec 1 to Tier 3
The Sec 1→3 pathway is designed around a genuine step-up in what leadership demands: from understanding personal values and behaviours (Sec 1), to enabling and encouraging peers in real projects (Sec 2 / Tier 2), to owning platforms and driving school-wide change (Sec 3 / Tier 3). Each tier is a qualitative upgrade — not just more hours.
Programme at a Glance
Three Tiers, One Spine
All three tiers run on the same leadership spine — Lead Self → Lead Others → Lead Change — anchored firmly in the Student Leadership Challenge Five Practices.
Tier 1
Leading Self, Others and Change
All Sec 1–3 students: school-wide implementation.
SLC framework vocabulary embedded in curriculum and everyday school culture.
Teacher-driven; supported by [Partner] as staff professional development.
Designed to progress across three years to fully explore the SLC model.
"I know what leadership means for me."
Tier 2
Leading on a Platform
Leaders with a platform: Class leaders and Councillors.
Leadership 101: Heightened awareness of SLC principles through mass workshop.
VIA Labs: Targeted training for project management skills.
Class-based VIA projects serve as leadership laboratories.
"I plan, lead, and adapt — not just participate."
Tier 3
Leading the Platforms
EXCO / Leaders Board (typically Sec 3 students).
Leadership Summit: Deep-dive into the core SLC framework.
Campaign Labs: Targeted training for advocacy and mission skills.
Student-led, student-driven projects serve as leadership laboratories.
Boosted by the ARC talent development approach.
"I lead beyond my title — and here is what it looks like."
02 — Programme Architecture
From Influence to Ownership
The design begins with a leadership spine — what every [School] student grows into across Sec 1–3 — and places the three tiers on top of it, each representing a different depth and context of influence.
2.1 — Leadership Spine
Lead Self → Lead Others → Lead Change
Click each horizon to explore the SLC anchors and what changes in leadership focus at each level.
SLC Anchor: Model the Way · Sec 1
Lead Self — "Who am I, and how do I show up?"
What changes at this stage
Students build a clear identity spine as the foundation of self-leadership and self-management: who they are, what they stand for, and how they want to behave in daily school life.
How students practise it
They surface two to three personal values and translate each into specific, observable commitments — for example, "I will listen fully before responding in group work."
Through a structured Leadership Design Journal—a product design good practice—they reflect honestly on self-management successes, track alignment metrics, and navigate setbacks.
Introduced through the Values Auction and Everyday Commitments Tracker.
SLC Anchors: Enable Others to Act · Encourage the Heart · Sec 2
Lead Others — "How do I help my peers do their best work?"
What changes at this stage
Students move beyond participating in teams to shaping how the team works. Team leadership is framed not as coordination but as creating conditions where everyone can contribute, grow, and build positive peer relationships.
How students practise it
Using the SLC practices of Enable Others to Act and Encourage the Heart, they build a concrete vocabulary for trust, psychological safety, listening, and feedback — skills that transfer directly into project work, class responsibilities, and council roles.
Activities deliberately place them in both giving and receiving roles, so they experience what it feels like to have contributions recognised and power shared.
Introduced through the Tower Problem and Peer Feedback Carousel.
SLC Anchors: Inspire a Shared Vision · Challenge the Process · Sec 3
Lead Change — "What matters to me, and how do I act with others?"
What changes at this stage
Students shift from "having opinions" to rallying peers around a shared cause — not through authority but through a compelling vision and creative problem-solving. The SLC practices frame change leadership as beginning with genuinely caring about an issue and being willing to act on it, even without a formal mandate.
How students practise it
They learn to articulate a clear and motivating "why", connecting their own values to something that matters to others — the goal is enlistment, not just persuasion.
Challenge the Process helps them treat first attempts as experiments, normalising iteration and reframing failure as learning.
Introduced through the Futures Newsroom and Challenge Sprint.
← Click a node to explore each horizon
2.2 — Three Tiers, One Spine
What changes at each tier is the nature of leadership
Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are not three separate programmes. They are the same leadership spine expressed at increasing depth, accountability, and reach. Select a tier to explore.
TIER 1Leading Self, Others and Change
Shared Language & Fundamental Skills
Who: All Sec 1–3 students, within existing curriculum blocks.
What changes: Leadership learning becomes part of the rhythm of school life, not a one-off event, through teacher-facilitated lessons anchored tightly in the SLC framework.
Programme: Tier 1 is a teacher capacity-build, not a student workshop product. [Partner] trains staff so the programme sustains beyond the initial deployment track.
TIER 2Leading on a Platform
Projects as Practice Grounds
Who: Sec 2–3 students in class leader, councillor, peer supporter, or CCA leader roles.
What changes: The same SLC spine intensifies. Instead of being paced across three years, students encounter all Five Practices in a focused Leadership 101 intensive, then apply them directly in a real leadership role.
Programme: The Leadership 101 Booster and VIA Labs connect SLC practices to design thinking and proposal-writing, turning community work into a structured leadership laboratory.
TIER 3Leading the Platforms
Influence at School-Wide Scale
Who: Sec 3 EXCO and Leaders Board members overseeing the student leadership platform.
What changes: This small group owns the student leadership platform and leads school-wide education campaigns around designated community causes.
Programme: The ARC Talent-Development Framework wraps around EXCO, giving them stretch assignments, intentional mentoring relationships, and curated learning beyond standard council roles.
03 — Time & Feasibility Matrix
Who Delivers What, and When
The design explicitly separates [Partner]-delivered components from school-led implementation to protect structural viability.
3.1 — Delivery Summary
Tier
[Partner] Delivers
School Leads & Monitors
Total Hours
Tier 1 All Students
6-hour staff training (2 workshops)The 6-hour figure refers to direct staff training loops. Student-facing implementation happens during routine slots without requiring calendar expansion.
Optional co-teaching support
2–3 × curriculum lessons per level across the yearEach session maps tightly to normal schedules, providing student cohorts with systematic baseline practice tasks.
6h of staff PD time with option for additional support
Tier 2 Leaders
Leadership 101 (~2.5h)
3 × VIA Lab (~1.5h each)
Class: VIA ShowcaseAnnual fair for classes to present active project outcomes.
Council: Council Pow WowsRegular operational check-ins to monitor project milestones and track framework habits.
Workshop 1 — Introduction to the Student Leadership Challenge
~2h · Mindset shift: Leadership is practice, not innate
[Partner] delivers a punchy, experiential introduction to the Student Leadership Challenge for the staff cohort.
Core message: leadership is about practice, not title. The Five Practices are behaviours anyone can develop.
Teachers walk away with a shared vocabulary — the Five Practices, Lead Self, Lead Others, Lead Change — that they will use in curriculum periods and informal conversations with students.
Format: 120 min session; mix of short activities, reflection, and Q&A.
~4h · Skills shift: Teachers build and practise SLC-anchored lessons by level
Form teachers regroup by level (Sec 1 / Sec 2 / Sec 3) with a facilitator.
Together, they map the SLC practice for their level to existing themes and co-design lesson outlines that they can deliver themselves.
Session includes micro-teaching practice, facilitation coaching, and discussion of common student responses.
Teachers leave with: ready-to-use activity guides, reflection prompts, and simple observation checklists for students.
Tier 2
Two Core Components
Leadership 101
~2.5h · One-off, high-intensity SLC introduction for all Tier 2 students
A focused workshop introducing all Five Practices, commitments, and behaviours, to jumpstartStudents explicitly connect back to Tier 1 lessons: "You've seen these practices in your classes — now here's the full picture." students' leadership journeys.
Structure: whole-group mass activity → Cascading debriefBuilds group consensus by sharing in pairs, fours, eights — moving towards whole-group synthesis.
Emphasises the step-up: from recognising leadership moments to choosing to lead in a formal role (class chair, councillor).
Students leave with an explicit commitment layout mapping their role responsibilities directly to target SLC practices.
VIA Labs
~1.5h each · Modular add-ons; school selects modules that fit students' needs
VIA Labs are short, targeted workshops spaced across the year that turn community tasks into genuine leadership laboratories. The school picks and sequences modules based on what their students most need.
Module A — Design Thinking for VIA: Empathy mapping, problem definition, ideation, and prototyping applied to their VIA project context.
Module B — Proposal Writing, Pitching & Stakeholder Engagement: Structure and communicate a project proposal concisely; receive and apply panel feedback; seek stakeholder buy-in.
Module C — Project Management: Timeline planning, role allocation, stakeholder mapping, and simple risk registers for VIA execution.
Module D — VIA Reflection Lab: Mid-project reflection on what students are learning about themselves as leaders; peer coaching using structured prompts.
School-led components alongside labs: VIA project execution, council check-ins using reflection templates, and a VIA Showcase where student leaders present their projects. All tracks encourage students to maintain a Leadership Design Journal—an authentic product design practice where they document structural setbacks, feedback loops, and daily behavioral choices.
Tier 3
Three Linked Components
Leadership Summit
~8h · Partner-led; Supported by Student Leadership Committee teachers
A full-day intensive (weekend, school holiday, or in lieu of school days) where EXCO members go deep into all Five Practices through experiential learning.
Design principle: [Partner] provides the lead facilitator; teachers serve as small-group coaches to build deeper internal relationships—deliberate, because EXCO mentorship must live in the school relationship.
Deep-dive into the Five Practices with activity-first learning (e.g. Values Sort for Model the Way, Marshmallow Challenge for Challenge the Process, Zoom for Inspire a Shared Vision).
Co-constructing the EXCO Mission and Vision statements. Excavating core beliefs about student leadership.
Student Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) diagnostic with coaching feedback loops.
Campaign Labs
3 × ~1h · Embedded within or shortly after Summit
EXCO identifies priority advocacy issues (e.g. student mental wellbeing, sustainability, school culture)The school retains the final say on approved focus areas..
Students map stakeholders and channels; gather baseline feedback via simple surveys or short interviews.
Draft campaign plans: messages, engagement activities, timelines, and impact indicators.
Sessions framed around student voice, data-informed choices, and responsible influence.
Campaign Clinics
2 × ~1h · Mid-campaign and near campaign peak
EXCO teams bring their campaign progress, challenges, and data to each clinic.
A coach helps them refine messaging, engagement tactics, and stakeholder strategies.
School coordinates day-to-day EXCO management and campaign integration into the school calendar.
04 — Learning Outcomes & Landing Points
What Students Know, Feel, and Can Do
Outcomes are written as observable behaviours and mindset shifts — not generic aspirations. Each level and tier carries a landing statement that anchors reflection and simple rubrics.
4.1 — Tier 1: Leading Self, Others and Change
All Sec 1–3 students · Teacher-facilitated Curriculum · 2–3 lessons per level per year
Level
Leadership Focus
Key Outcomes
Landing Point
Sec 1
Lead Self Model the Way
Can identify and articulate 2 personal values and what they look like in daily behaviour
Sets one values-based goal for school life and tracks progress over a term
Reflects honestly in their design journal on one self-management success and one struggle
"I know what leadership means for me."
Sec 2
Lead Others Enable · Encourage
Can describe what trust and psychological safety mean in a team
Practises at least one structured listening or feedback tool in group settings
Recognises and affirms specific peer contributions; reflects on the effect
"I know how to show up for the people around me."
Sec 3
Lead Change Inspire · Challenge
Can identify a school or community issue and articulate why it matters
Works with peers to propose a realistic change idea, considering stakeholders and constraints
Presents the idea and revises at least one aspect based on feedback received
"I know what I stand for — and how to act on it."
4.2 — Tier 2: Leading on a Platform
Class Leaders & Councillors · Leadership 101 (~2.5h) + 3 × VIA Labs (~1.5h each) · ~7h with Partner
Tier 2
Leading on a Platform
Projects as Practice Grounds
Plans and executes a VIA project demonstrating basic project management: goals, roles, timelines, and risk-anticipation.
Applies all Five Practices to their own behaviour — can cite at least one specific example for each practice in their leadership role.
Facilitates at least one structured reflection or debrief with their class or team using a three-question protocol.
Connects leadership learning from baseline tracks to the real challenges of holding a formal role.
Uses data (surveys, focus groups, observations) to identify a priority issue and shape a coherent campaign around it.
Leads their council in designing and executing a school-wide advocacy campaign, with clear messages, engagement activities, and feedback loops.
Demonstrates growth across the Five Practices via LPI data and teacher observations; can articulate personal leadership goals and next steps.
Mentors at least one Tier 2 student leader, modelling leadership as influence and service — not position.
"I lead beyond my title — and here is what it looks like."
4.4 — SLC Practices Coverage
All Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership are addressed transparently across the three tiers.
05 — Sample Core Activities
Illustrative Activities Across All Tiers
Representative activities — not exhaustive. Use the filters to explore by practice, level, or programme context.
SLC Practice
Level
Tier
Programme / Workshop
TIER 1Sec 1Model the WayCurriculum
Values Auction
Students bid for value cards using a limited points budget, then identify one specific school behaviour that expresses each chosen value. Forces a concrete choice between values students claim to hold vs ones they actually prioritise.
SLC Outcomes
Names 2 personal values and what they look like in daily behaviour (MTW — Clarify values)
Practises translating abstract values into observable commitments
⏱ 45–60 min
TIER 1Sec 1Model the WayCurriculum
Everyday Commitments Tracker
Students write one specific commitment statement ("I will greet group members by name before starting work") and track their consistency inside their design journal, capturing successes and setbacks.
SLC Outcomes
Practises consistency between values and daily behaviour (MTW — Set the example)
Develops baseline self-monitoring and honest reflection habits
⏱ 20 min setup + 2-week tracking
TIER 1Sec 2Enable Others to ActEncourage the HeartCurriculum
The Tower Problem
Teams build the tallest free-standing tower from limited materials. A mid-activity constraint forces the team to adapt. Debrief focuses entirely on enabling and encouraging behaviours — not who won.
SLC Outcomes
Identifies enabling behaviours that made the team more effective (EOTA — Foster collaboration)
Practises naming specific peer contributions (ETH — Recognise contributions)
⏱ 50–60 min
TIER 1Sec 2Enable Others to ActEncourage the HeartCurriculum
Peer Feedback Carousel
Each student receives structured written feedback from every peer using the format: "One thing I noticed you do well… One thing I think would help you grow…" Students rotate stations, then reflect on patterns.
Develops capacity to receive feedback constructively to improve team relationships
⏱ 40–50 min
TIER 1Sec 3Inspire a Shared VisionChallenge the ProcessCurriculum
Futures Newsroom
Groups script and deliver a 2-minute "news report" from three years in the future about a school issue that students successfully changed. They must name what changed, who was involved, and what the turning point was.
SLC Outcomes
Practises envisioning a positive future and expressing it as a compelling narrative (ISV — Envision the future)
Identifies what makes a vision actionable vs abstract (ISV — Enlist others)
⏱ 60–75 min
TIER 1Sec 3Challenge the ProcessCurriculum
Challenge Sprint
Given a real school problem (e.g. canteen queues), groups have 30 minutes to generate three different interventions — including at least one "unexpected" idea — and articulate what a small experiment would look like. 90-second pitch to the group.
SLC Outcomes
Practises identifying improvement opportunities over the status quo (CTP — Search for opportunities)
Frames small, testable experiments rather than waiting for perfect solutions (CTP — Experiment and take risks)
⏱ 50–60 min
TIER 2Leadership 101VIA LabsEnable Others to ActChallenge the Process
Stakeholder Map Walk
Student leaders physically map their VIA project ecosystem on the classroom floor, placing stakeholder groups as markers, then "walk the map" discussing how to engage, enable, or convince each group. Each leader commits to one concrete stakeholder action.
Outcomes
Project skills: Identifies key stakeholders and their interests; applies basic stakeholder analysis
SLC-linked: Practises enabling others beyond the immediate team (EOTA — Foster collaboration)
⏱ 60–75 min
TIER 2VIA LabsInspire a Shared Vision
VIA Pitch Clinic
Students prepare a 3-minute VIA project pitch (problem → who benefits → solution → what success looks like) and deliver it to a panel. Panel gives structured feedback. Students revise the pitch.
Outcomes
Project skills: Structures and communicates a project proposal concisely
TIER 3Leadership SummitCampaign LabsModel the WayEncourage the Heart
Personal Leadership Inventory & Coaching
EXCO complete an LPI self-assessment and receive anonymous peer ratings across the Five Practices. Each member identifies two strengths and one stretch area, then pairs for a structured peer coaching conversation.
SLC Outcomes
Develops data-informed self-awareness about leadership behaviours (MTW — Clarify values & Set the example)
Practises genuine recognition of peer strengths (ETH — Recognise contributions)
Sets personal growth goals linked directly to campaign responsibilities
⏱ 90 min
TIER 3Leadership SummitModel the Way
Values Sort
EXCO physically sort value cards into priority piles. Working in silence first, then in pairs, they explain their top five values and connect each to a moment in their leadership journey. Teacher-facilitators model vulnerability first.
SLC Outcomes
Articulates a clear personal values hierarchy and connects it to leadership identity (MTW — Clarify values)
Creates shared vocabulary for EXCO to hold each other accountable through the year
⏱ 45 min
TIER 3Leadership SummitChallenge the ProcessEnable Others to Act
Marshmallow Challenge
Teams build the tallest free-standing marshmallow-topped spaghetti structure in 18 minutes. The debrief focuses on iteration vs planning — and asks directly: "Where are you over-planning and under-experimenting in your campaign?"
SLC Outcomes
Experiences the value of iterative experimentation over the "right" plan (CTP — Experiment and take risks)
Identifies enabling behaviours that allowed the team to adapt under pressure (EOTA — Foster collaboration)
⏱ 45 min
TIER 3Leadership SummitEnable Others to Act
Balloon Tower with Constraints
Each team member operates under a unique constraint (cannot speak, dominant hand restricted, observer-only). Goal is deliberate enabling practice when the team has unequal capacity — directly mirroring how EXCO leads diverse council members.
SLC Outcomes
Practises sharing power and decisions across diverse team members (EOTA — Foster collaboration & Strengthen others)
Surfaces unconscious tendencies to centralise control under constraint
⏱ 50 min
TIER 3Leadership SummitChallenge the ProcessEnable Others to Act
Egg Drop
Teams design and build a protective structure for a raw egg using limited materials, then test it with a drop. Deliberate constraints are introduced mid-build. Debrief targets how leaders respond when plans break mid-execution.
SLC Outcomes
Practises fast prototyping and adapting under constraint (CTP — Experiment and take risks)
Surfaces how power and decision-making are shared when pressure rises (EOTA — Strengthen others)
Debrief focus: "What did you do when the plan changed? Who adjusted, and who froze?"
⏱ 60–75 min
TIER 3Campaign LabsChallenge the ProcessEnable Others to Act
Stakeholder Interview Blitz
EXCO teams identify stakeholder groups, conduct short open-ended interviews, and synthesise findings using a dot-voting exercise. Output: a "What we heard" brief that shapes campaign messaging.
Outcomes
Project skills: Designs and conducts basic qualitative interviews; synthesises into actionable insights
SLC-linked: Challenges assumptions about what stakeholders want (CTP — Search for opportunities); creates conditions for others to feel heard (EOTA — Foster collaboration)
⏱ 90 min
TIER 2Leadership 101Challenge the ProcessEnable Others to Act
Ping-Pong Ball Madness
Groups get a bucket and ping-pong balls with one instruction: get balls into buckets. The intended solution — stacking all buckets together — only emerges when groups stop competing and start collaborating.
Outcomes
SLC-linked: Students challenge assumptions about winning and recognise that reframing the problem is a leadership act (CTP — Search for opportunities)
SLC-linked: Enabling others produces a better collective result than isolated, competitive effort (EOTA — Foster collaboration)
Debrief anchor: Where in your VIA project are you holding your bucket too tightly?
⏱ 30–40 min
No activities match the selected filters. Try a different combination or reset.
06 — Educator Partnership Matrix
Built for a School That Already Has a Full Calendar
Leadership development works best when integrated into the school's existing calendar realities. This section maps out how external advisory loops and internal school structures interact sustainably.
6.1 — Starting With the School
What We Know About [School]'s Context
Secondary schools operate under intense time constraints. Teachers balance marking duties, pastoral care responsibilities, and administration alongside core classroom time. Time for standalone initiatives is scarce and highly contested. Student councils manage high-visibility operations but often lack continuous, practical strategic mentoring due to scheduling gaps between student availability and teacher contact limits.
Any programme that ignores these calendar constraints will struggle to succeed past its first deployment cycle. Vector treats these parameters as design rules, balancing delivery models to ensure structural feasibility.
No Timetable Expansion
Tier 1 runs inside pre-allocated blocks
We do not request extra calendar windows. Tier 1 optimizes internal teacher capacity through targeted professional development instead of sending external actors into classrooms. Once trained, educators weave core leadership language directly into baseline operations, allowing partners to step back over time.
Platform Integration Core
Tier 2 maps to existing service tracks
Community service tasks are already embedded in school calendars. Our model upgrades their learning value without duplicating student steps. Foundational bootcamps prepare project leads before tasks drop, while targeted modules provide skills exactly when needed, leaving project management safely with the school.
Scaffolded Mentorship Check-ins
Tier 3 asks for presence over expertise
Faculty mentors do not need deep theoretical leadership training. They step in twice a term for a 30-minute balanced conversation with an assigned student leader. The partner provides clear conversation cards; the school provides the baseline relationship.
Quality Assurance Track
Regular Maintenance & Calibration
To preserve high delivery standards, the program introduces a formal calibration system. This track uses regular check-ins to support teacher facilitation quality, backed by school analytics that measure student framework utilization and chart teacher sentiment toward the SLC track.
6.2 — A Clear Division of Labour
What [Partner] Holds. What [School] Holds.
Effective partnerships rely on clear operational boundaries. This division matrix outlines exactly who owns what path across the engagement.
[Partner] Brings
[School] Brings
Programme framework anchored in SLC Five Practices and the Lead Self → Others → Change spine
Student leaders who are ready to lead — Sec 1–3, class leaders, EXCO
Staff PD to build teacher fluency in leadership language (Tier 1 rollout)
CCE lesson time and the trust of teachers willing to try something new
Facilitation of Leadership 101, VIA Labs, Leadership Summit, Campaign Labs, and Clinics
Scheduling, logistics, and the school relationships that make events run
Prompt banks, design journal formats, conversation guides, and LPI analytics left with the school after engagement
Teacher-mentors who show up for EXCO check-ins as caring, consistent adults
Fidelity to the developmental progression — Sec 1 to Sec 3, self to others to change, growing in complexity
Continuity across cohorts: a school that uses the shared language and templates year after year
6.3 — Sustaining the Programme
What the School Gains — and What [Partner] Can Continue to Offer
Every engagement is designed to leave permanent capital behind. At the close of Year 1, [School] retains trained teachers, a shared leadership vocabulary across all year levels, and a comprehensive set of ready-to-use tools and templates. These are genuinely theirs to keep and use.
That said, keeping a leadership culture alive requires continuous calibration. While optimized schools can run core student paths independently in subsequent terms, [Partner] remains positioned to deliver advanced value layers. We shift our presence toward premium system calibration tracks: conducting strategic data reviews, refreshing faculty competencies, or running advanced clinics for new senior executive cohorts.
Built-In Capacity
What the School Leaves With
After Year 1: teachers trained in SLC language, level-appropriate prompt banks, design journal templates, EXCO mentor conversation guides, and LPI self-assessment tools — all usable without external facilitation.
If Capacity Allows
Running Elements Independently
Schools with trained, SLC-fluent teachers and established council structures may choose to self-facilitate Tier 1 lessons, project debriefs, and EXCO mentor check-ins in Year 2 and beyond. [Partner] can advise on readiness metrics.
Going Deeper
What a Continued Partnership Looks Like
Many schools choose to deepen the engagement over time: bringing [Partner] back for new cohorts, refreshing facilitator skills, extending Tier 3 tracks, or processing long-term framework utilization analytics.
Portfolio Note: Design Notes
A brief, honest note for the reviewer on process, assumptions, and framework architecture.
Why an Interactive HTML Format
My assumption is that a proposal like this would typically be shared with the school ahead of a meeting, then used to anchor the conversation in person. An HTML file works for both. The school leader or HOD can browse it in their own time before the meeting, explore what is relevant to them, and come prepared with questions. In the room, the consultant can navigate it live, open sections on demand, and respond to the school's priorities rather than walking through slides in sequence.
The tabs, interactive pyramid, filterable activity cards, and expandable panels are all intentional choices. They reflect the kind of proposal experience I would want to bring into a real session: layered, consultative, and responsive.
How I Used AI in This Proposal
The ideas, structure, and framing in this proposal are mine. I drew on my professional background in student leadership and my reading of the brief to decide what this programme should look like, how it should be tiered, and what it should ask of schools, students, and educators.
AI handled the execution: the HTML formatting, the visual layout, and the first draft of each written section. I used it the way someone might use a writing template, as a starting point rather than a finished product. Every section was read through, and quite a few were rewritten or adjusted where the framing felt off or the nuance was missing.
To be clear about the split: the thinking, the framing, the analytical calls, and the judgement throughout this proposal are mine. AI produced the first cut of words and built the interactive shell I specified. What you are reading reflects my choices about what to keep, what to change, and what to push back on.
Assumptions About School Context
I built this proposal around the assumption that most secondary schools are running at or near capacity. Teachers and middle leaders carry full timetables, administrative responsibilities, and co-curricular commitments alongside their core teaching work. Any external programme that piles on to this will struggle to take hold, no matter how good it is on paper.
That became a guiding principle for the design: a good proposal should not add to what the school already carries. It should find ways to take something off the plate while leaving behind something lasting. That is why Tier 1 sits within staff professional development rather than running as a separate student-facing programme. It works with existing capacity rather than asking for more.
I know this is an assumption. Some schools have strong student leadership infrastructure and teachers who are ready to go from day one. The proposal tries to accommodate that, but the default design was shaped by the more common reality.
Reflection: Switching Hats
This was an interesting exercise in perspective-shifting. A good part of my career has been spent inside schools, in formal leadership roles where I had the standing to direct and implement. In those settings, I could decide that a programme would run and then make it run. That is not what this is.
As an external consultant, the whole posture changes. I cannot tell a school what to do. I have to propose, persuade, and earn trust, while knowing the school has a hundred other priorities and is weighing this against all of them. That shift affected how I wrote every section. The language had to move from "this is what will happen" to "here is what this makes possible." The offer has to feel like something worth saying yes to.
There was also a business development angle I had not sat with as deliberately before. This proposal is, in a real sense, a pitch. It has to genuinely serve the school while also making a case for the partner's continued involvement. Getting that balance right, being useful rather than just present, required more thought than I expected. Section 6.3 was where I felt that tension most clearly.
The most useful reminder from this exercise was that knowing something deeply from the inside does not automatically make you the right person to design it from the outside. The move from authority to influence is not just a change in tone. It is a different kind of professional discipline.
Printable version — click the button to open a clean, linear version of this proposal suitable for printing or saving as PDF. All interactive elements are hidden in print view.
01 — Context & Rationale
Why Vector?
[School] is seeking a tiered leadership development programme for Sec 1–3 students. Vector is the strategic response — built on a single organising belief: that leadership is influence, not position. Every student can lead. The question is how we grow that capacity intentionally, at the right depth, for the right group.
The programme aligns with curricular targets and draws on familiar SEL and PERMA competencies — not as a parallel track, but as a thread woven through lessons, VIA projects, and student council life. It is partner-designed and school-owned: [Partner] provides the framework, tools, and facilitation; teachers and student leaders bring it alive.
02 — Programme Architecture
One Spine, Three Tiers
The leadership spine — Lead Self → Lead Others → Lead Change — runs through every tier and year level. It is anchored firmly in the SLC Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership. The three tiers describe how far and how deeply a student leads, not how good they are.
Model the Way · Sec 1
Lead Self
Clarify personal values
Set the example through daily actions
Build self-awareness and consistency in design journals
Enable · Encourage · Sec 2
Lead Others
Enable peers to contribute their best
Build trust and share power
Recognise and affirm specific contributions
Inspire · Challenge · Sec 3
Lead Change
Identify issues that matter beyond self
Articulate a compelling shared vision
Experiment, adapt, and mobilise others
TIER 1
Leading Self, Others and Change — All Sec 1–3
[Partner] trains teachers (~6h staff PD across two phases). Teachers deliver SLC-anchored lessons per level. Tier 1 is a teacher capacity-build — shared leadership language reaches every student.
TIER 2
Leading on a Platform — Class Leaders & Councillors
Leadership 101 (~2.5h, external-led) introduces all Five Practices. Three VIA Labs (~1.5h each) build project and facilitation skills. School owns VIA projects and council check-ins using left-behind templates. Total footprint: ~7h.
EXCO management, campaign calendar, teacher-mentor check-ins
~13h
04 — Learning Outcomes & Landing Points
What Students Know, Feel, and Can Do
Tier 1 · All Sec 1–3 students · Teacher-facilitated Lessons
Level
Leadership Focus
Key Outcomes
Landing Point
Sec 1
Lead Self Model the Way
Can identify and articulate 2 personal values and what they look like in daily behaviour
Sets one values-based goal for school life and tracks progress over a term
Reflects honestly in design journals on one self-management success and one struggle
"I know what leadership means for me."
Sec 2
Lead Others Enable · Encourage
Can describe what trust and psychological safety mean in a team
Practises at least one structured listening or feedback tool in group settings
Recognises and affirms specific peer contributions; reflects on the effect
"I know how to show up for the people around me."
Sec 3
Lead Change Inspire · Challenge
Can identify a school or community issue and articulate why it matters
Works with peers to propose a realistic change idea, considering stakeholders and constraints
Presents the idea and revises at least one aspect based on feedback received
"I know what I stand for — and how to act on it."
TIER 2
Leading on a Platform
Class Leaders & Councillors
Plans and executes a VIA project with clear goals, roles, and timelines
Applies all Five Practices and can cite one specific example per practice
Facilitates at least one structured debrief with their class or team
"I plan, lead, and adapt — not just participate."
TIER 3
Leading the Platforms
EXCO / Leaders Board
Uses data to identify a priority issue and shape a school-wide advocacy campaign
Demonstrates growth across Five Practices via LPI data and teacher observations
Mentors at least one Tier 2 student, modelling leadership as influence and service
"I lead beyond my title — and here is what it looks like."
05 — Sample Core Activities
Illustrative Activities Across All Tiers
TIER 1Sec 1Model the Way
Values Auction
Students bid for value cards then commit to one school behaviour expressing each chosen value.
⏱ 45–60 min · Curriculum
TIER 1Sec 2Enable Others to ActEncourage the Heart
The Tower Problem
Teams build the tallest tower; a mid-activity constraint surfaces enabling and encouraging behaviours under pressure.
⏱ 50–60 min · Curriculum
TIER 1Sec 3Inspire a Shared VisionChallenge the Process
Futures Newsroom
Groups script a 2-min "news broadcast" from 3 years ahead about a school change students drove.
⏱ 60–75 min · Curriculum
TIER 2Leadership 101Challenge the ProcessEnable Others to Act
Ping-Pong Ball Madness
Groups receive a bucket and ping-pong balls. The solution — stacking buckets — only appears when students stop protecting their space and collaborate.
⏱ 30–40 min · Leadership 101
TIER 2VIA LabsEnable Others to ActChallenge the Process
Stakeholder Map Walk
Student leaders physically map their VIA project stakeholders, then each commits to one specific engagement action.
⏱ 60–75 min · VIA Labs
TIER 3Leadership SummitChallenge the ProcessEnable Others to Act
Marshmallow Challenge
Teams build a free-standing structure under constraints, illustrating that iteration beats planning; debrief connects to campaign design.
⏱ 45 min · Leadership Summit
TIER 3Leadership SummitCampaign LabsModel the WayEncourage the Heart
Personal Leadership Inventory & Coaching
LPI self + peer assessment; each EXCO member identifies two strengths and one stretch, then coaches a peer using a structured protocol.
⏱ 90 min · Campaign Labs
06 — Educator Partnership
How Partners Work with [School]
All Tiers · Continuous
Curriculum Alignment Checkpoints
Form teachers weave prompt banks into standard tracks. Level HODs run termly checkpoints to ensure framework fidelity, maintain delivery quality, and review deployment analytics.
Tier 2 · Post-VIA Milestones
VIA Design Journal
Using good product design practice, students use a structured journal to map milestones, extract lessons about leading others, and track iteration adjustments.
Tier 3 · Campaign Phase
EXCO Teacher-Mentor Scheme
Each EXCO member paired with a teacher-mentor for 2× 30-min structured check-ins. Mentors use clear prompt cards to track execution values. Certified training is available for key staff.
Year 2 and Beyond
Sustaining the Culture
At the close of Year 1, [School] retains trained teachers, prompt guides, journal structures, and LPI self-assessment tracking dashboards. Advanced advisory retainers focus on processing multi-year framework analytics and tracking systemic sentiment indexes to ensure long-term health.
Prepared by Caleb Chan · [Partner] · Client: [School]