Case Study of Successful PLCs Think of a PLC that you were involved in this past year. Use the PLC Case Study Scoring Guide (available in Files in the CANVAS classroom and below) to guide your reflect
Tamekia L. Stewart
27 March 2016
EDL 791- Data Analysis Program Improvement
Assignment: Case Study of Successful PLCs
Professional learning communities are an essential component in the successful operation of any organization, and the significance of this programming is becoming more apparent in educational settings across the country. From coast to coast, educational agencies are incorporating models for professional learning communities with the expectation that through collaboration and shared best practices, stronger educators will result in more proficient students. Undoubtedly, when the team members understand the purpose and embrace the procedures that facilitate learning communities, the potential for a successful meeting is unbounded.
Pearl Upper Elementary houses 4th and 5th grade students. Teachers are paired into teams. One teacher is responsible for math and science, and the other teacher is responsible for English and social studies. These teachers share, on average, 40-50 students. Teachers collaborate frequently within the building, as team teachers, grade level teams, subject matter, and data teams. These meetings are held during common planning, before and after school, and during the district’s strategically designed PLC time set aside on Wednesday afternoons. Perhaps one of the oldest buildings within the district, the faculty and staff members have decorated using bright, kid-friendly decorations, and the building is noticeably clean and organized. The “Pirate PRIDE” that is instantly noticed in the facilities is also immediately apparent in the planning and discussion of academics as well.
Present, prepared, and engaged are the best descriptors for the Pearl Upper Elementary 4th grade English data team members. The team being observed was comprised of the seven 4th grade English teachers, two interventionists, and the instructional specialist, who served as the leader of the meeting. The room was arranged so that all of the team members were seated at a round table, allowing each of them to see one another, have a view of the projector, and a view of the data board containing the students’ pictures. As the teachers entered, they immediately went to the board and adjusted their students’ pictures as necessary based on the data that they would be discussing in the meeting. The instructional specialist was already present and handed each teacher as copy of the meeting agenda and her report, which was a compilation of each of the data pieces that they use to determine student levels, identify strengths and deficits, and predict performance as it relates to state testing. Roberts and Pruitt emphasize the importance of teachers having data along with supervisors because it assists them in making more “informed decisions about changing their practice” (p. 224). While some teachers were thrilled with the report regarding their students, still there were others who were perplexed by their students’ performance. There was authentic, insightful dialogue throughout the course of the meeting, especially as the teachers acknowledged the timeline for the remaining school days. A sense of urgency, but genuine concern regarding student success, preparation, and performance resonated in the comments and questions that were shared during the meeting.
There are 4 major data sources the teachers utilize when evaluating student performance and predicting student success. These include classroom academic performance and observations, STAR testing data, AR levels/points, and district-mandated CASE testing data. One of the major concerns for the teachers is the number of data sources. Teachers vocalized their desire and need to have one to two essential focuses, especially approaching the closing of the school year. One of the most important components of a data meeting is having an appropriate amount of data to discuss (Wellman & Lipton, 2011). Excessive or insufficient data will likely result in unproductive conversations. The instructional specialist, succinctly, told the teachers to focus on the students. As simple as her statement sounds, the interpretation thereof is profound. Teach the whole group, individualize, remediate, and enrich as appropriate, and everything else will fall into place. With the compounding attention and value placed on state testing and student performance, teachers often forget to simply focus on their students. The conversation ensued, with each teacher detailing how they were utilizing the data sources in their individual classrooms and providing suggestions and support to their team members of ways to more comfortably incorporate the data tools. Ultimately, the teachers determined that they would visit classrooms to observe how their colleagues have set up and are utilizing the data tools.
The team’s collaborative conversations, especially regarding their individual challenges, were evidence that they are utilizing their time in the learning community efficiently. The teachers were truly in search of best practices that they could adapt to fit their own learning environments. Sharing of the data scores was also evidence of a collaborative effort, as the teachers were able to ascertain where they are performing as a school, since ultimately, that is how they will be “judged.” Even though the team is comprised of a range of teachers from 25 to more than 50 years old, and having 1 to more than 25 years of classroom experience, there was sincere respect and consideration for every opinion, practice, and challenge shared. They skillfully navigated through each of DuFour’s questions, determining what they wanted the students to know and understand. They discussed particular writing skills and performance levels that the students should reach, and fluidly transitioned into what mastery of these measures would entail. Determining that no student is a loss, discussions involving DuFour’s questions regarding what will happen if students do not master objectives and what happens when they do were natural next steps. The teachers chose remediation tools as well as tools for enrichment that were available and would be implemented immediately. One of the prominent components of their discussion was the team’s current reading selection. The teachers discussed how the students were performing with the guided questions and independent reading. They determined that the books were chosen to help improve student interest in reading, and that they wanted all students to be able to answer guided questions independently and accurately. They determined that for the students who were struggling during independent reading times, they would review the selection by reading aloud following the independent reading, and for those who successfully read and answered their guided questions independently, there would be an opportunity for them to continue to read alone or to read an additional text on or above their level and take additional AR tests. Consideration of all learners was consistent throughout the meeting, and strategies for addressing learning needs and expectations grounded the teachers’ discussions.
My observation of this learning community was insightful. This was my first opportunity to witness a data meeting and to be involved in an elementary instructional session, and I would rate this experience advanced. The meeting was structured in a manner that allowed efficient use of time, utilizing 60 minutes to cover topics ranging from academics of daily instruction to strategic placement and facilities that would be utilized for testing. The team’s instinctive nature to remain student focused in all discussions was commendable. Often during learning community sessions, educators tend to deviate from the original plan and redirect the focus to teacher grievances, but the majority of the team members avoided any such discussion completely. If I were forced to identify a weakness, it would be the one talkative team member, whose comments were exceptionally lengthy and not always applicable to the conversation. Even in those instances, the leader or a team member redirected the conversation and appropriate, meaningful conversations ensued.
I was so impressed by the proceedings that I shared my experience with other members of the leadership team at Pearl Junior High School, and we have plans to observe there again. When debriefing my principal about my experience, she asked me, “What worked well?” In my response to her, I highlighted the fact that although the teachers were aware of their scores prior to the data meeting, I believe that the compiled report, detailing student progress from the beginning of the year to the date of the meeting was beneficial for the teachers. As educators, we are keenly aware that sometimes presenting the same matter or concept in a different manner makes a tremendous difference. Wellman and Lipton acknowledged Tufte’s 1983 quote, which says, “Visually vibrant displays support group exploration of data (p. 47). When the teachers were able to see their numbers and compare these to their colleagues, I feel that it gave them a gauge of where their students truly are performing. Of course, several of them had to consider the factors of students with special needs, ELL, and students in the tier process. While there was relief and satisfaction for some, for others this data was not so easy to digest. It is never easy to see your scores as the lowest, but the established norms for this group allowed the data to generate conversations about what is happening in other classrooms and how they are addressing student needs. This practice is one that we can definitely benefit from in all schools. Honest conversations regarding our struggles are the only way that we can address the struggles and begin to implement practices to address them and strengthen our students. This is not a community where some are holding back information so that the next person does not overshadow them, but a team of educators with the desire and determination to learn from one another how to more effectively teach students, identify and address their needs, and impact their lives.
References
Roberts, S. & Pruitt, E. (2009). Schools as professional learning communities. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Wellman, B. & Lipton, L. (2011). Data-driven dialogue. Sherman, Connecticut: Mira Via, LLC.
