Cedar Grove Elementary School (2023)

  1. PLC Story
  2. PLC Practices
  3. Achievement Data
  4. Awards
  5. Resources

Cedar Grove Elementary’s PLC journey began as the Principal and Assistant Principal attended the PLC At Work Institute in Atlanta, Georgia in November of 2018. The group that attended this event knew that this was the path the entire district should take moving forward. So when we returned, we immediately began the first steps of building shared understanding and commitment to the PLC at Work Process. We implemented sanctified time during the contract day for every teacher to work in collaborative teams with a focus on the four critical questions of a PLC in an effort to gain a clear understanding of effectively implementing routine collaboration among teachers. We also spent time during the initial implementation teaching staff about Building a Collaborative Culture, The Tight and Loose of a PLC, Shifting from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning, and a results-oriented approach. 

During the 2019-2020 school year, our school created Cedar Grove’s Guiding Coalition.  This team attended a two-day training led by Solution Tree expert, Dr. Luis Cruz. Attendees left with a better understanding and drive to implement the PLC process and become the engine for our collaborative culture at Cedar Grove. 

Teachers at Cedar Grove learned the importance of identifying and unpacking standards in order to create a guaranteed and viable curriculum. Teachers analyzed state standards using the REAL (Rigor, Endurance, Assessment, Leverage) method to determine essential standards for each grade level. After essential standards were identified, collaborative time centered around the four critical questions to foster successful student learning outcomes. Agendas were developed around the four questions and utilized by all collaborative teams. 

The administration created a master schedule that adjusted teachers’ afternoon duties to ensure meeting time for weekly collaboration was protected. During collaborative meetings, homeroom teachers began to create common formative assessments (CFAs). Teachers evaluated CFA data and used it to drive instruction, interventions, and extensions in their classrooms.

The Guiding Coalition began meeting regularly to reflect and gain more knowledge on the PLC process. Guiding Coalition members attended a follow-up PD session with Dr. Luis Cruz to identify the next steps for improving our practices as a Guiding Coalition and as a PLC. 

Unfortunately, our school was closed in March of 2020 due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, and much of our PLC work was halted as instruction moved to asynchronous learning. At the start of the 2020-2021 school year, many COVID restrictions were implemented as in-person instruction restarted. While this prevented the ease of many of the best practices of a true PLC, our school continued to work consistently in collaborative teams, create a guaranteed and viable curriculum,  create common formative assessments, provide in-class responses around questions 3 and 4 of the PLC process, and also provide Tier 2 and Tier 3 support. 

At the beginning of the 2022-2023 school year, we led our staff through a PLC Reset. This was a way to build a renewed focus and energy toward the right work of collaboration and becoming a true PLC. During the 2022-2023 school year, our school took its most substantial steps forward in the PLC process. We began to rethink and reimagine our intervention and even class rosters through the lens of our PLC. We moved to a departmentalized model instead of self-contained in all 3rd-5th grade classes. We strategically placed students in fluid classes throughout our 3rd-5th grade classes. We made these placements based on data and the current reality for students. We implemented push-in models of intervention where students could move more easily in and out of Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions as needed. This move also allowed us more capacity to intervene for students who had not mastered essential standards. We have seen tremendous growth using this model and we have seen a direct correlation between our effectiveness in collaboration and our assessment success. 


Recently, we have made positive changes to our Guiding Coalition. A group of teachers attended a PLC at Work Institute in the Summer of 2023.  After collaborating with this group, we made the decision for one of these teachers to serve as the facilitator of our Guiding Coalition. Our focus this year has been to dig deeper with our essential standards mastery and have an increased focus on questions 3 and 4 of the PLC Process. Each team regularly completes the Critical Issues for Team Consideration protocol in order to get an idea of the current reality of our practices. We have also placed a focus this year on coaching collaborative teams. Our district has worked closely with Michael Maffoni to create our own version of a strategy implementation guide called the Collaborative Coaching Instrument. Our leadership team is currently focused on completing coaching cycles with every collaborative team in order to identify each team’s “next move” together. This is a non-evaluative process that builds shared communication and ownership of improving each collaborative team’s progress. This has already demonstrated some improvement in collaborative team meetings and also as a PLC.

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

At Cedar Grove Elementary School, we depend on data to measure student growth. We plan instruction based on the four critical questions of the PLC process.

Question 1: What do we want students to learn and be able to do?

  • Grade-level teams begin each school year by collaborating to identify/ review essential standards using the R.E.A.L. Process. This is a process to evaluate students based on:

Readiness: Is the standard necessary for student success in the following grade?

Endurance:  Will the standard last beyond the class or the course? 

Assessment: Does the standard show up on district, state, or national assessments?

Leverage: Will the standard show up in other domains of learning?

  • Based on essential standards, grade-level teams develop a scope and sequence ensuring they have ample time to teach and reteach essential skills.
  • Essential standards are unpacked together in collaborative teams in order to build shared knowledge of the depth of the standards and to develop learning targets. Collaborative teams identify specific learning targets and determine how student achievement and success criteria will be measured, as well as what will happen if students do not meet grade-level expectations.
  • The team creates unit plans that include CFA’s for learning targets, time to reteach and provide extensions. Teams plan using shared Google Drives that have Google Slides, meeting agendas and newsletters to ensure all team members are on the same page. 

 

Question 2: How will we know if they learn it?

  • Team-created Common Formative Assessments and summative assessments are collaboratively created for each unit prior to teaching the unit. We are currently working with grade levels to develop protocols to make standard and learning target alignment more effective on our assessments.
  • A pretest, CFAs, and a summative assessment are created for each unit.  These assessments provide data that is used to inform teachers of student progress and allow for analysis of effective teaching strategies and improved instructional practices.
  •  Pretests are given at the beginning of each unit with the dual purpose of guiding instruction and showing growth during the unit. Pretests also allow the teacher to gather and analyze data to strengthen prerequisite skills that students need to master grade-level essential standards.
  • CFAs are administered throughout each unit to monitor progress and check student mastery of learning targets.
  • Summative assessments for each unit are created before the start of instruction. They measure student mastery of all learning targets and essential standards taught throughout each unit.

 

  • STAR Reading/Early Literacy and STAR Math assessments are given three times per school year and serve as a universal screener. Since South Carolina does not have an accountability measure for primary grade levels, we use this data to measure student growth and achievement levels in all areas, but especially in our primary grades.
  • Fountas and Pinnell (F&P) Benchmark Assessments are administered to all students three times per year. These assessments are dually used as a benchmark and as a way to track student reading progress.
  • Once assessments are given, data is analyzed at the student, class, and grade level.
  • Individual student data is analyzed for mastery of the overall essential standard and learning targets.
  • Overall class results are analyzed to determine the percentage of students that have shown mastery of learning targets and to identify the most effective instructional strategies used.
  • Grade level data is studied to determine the overall mastery level of each essential. If less than 80% of the grade level shows mastery of an essential, then additional Tier 1 instruction is provided.
 
 

Critical Questions 3 and 4: How will we respond when some students do not learn? How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?

  • Each collaborative team has pocket charts that are color-coded to represent student mastery levels of each essential. Student name cards are placed in the appropriate pocket chart: red, green, or blue. Students in the red chart need intensive intervention, students in the green chart are grasping the concept but need more practice, and students in the blue group have mastered all learning targets and are ready for extension activities. 
  • Once data has been analyzed and student mastery levels determined, the team decides which teachers will work with each group of students based on their class’ overall success with the content.
  • After each administration of the STAR assessment, student data is analyzed and action plans are created for all students who show low growth or low proficiency. These action plans are implemented during our Tier 2 WIN time.
  • After each F&P benchmark window is complete, student data is used to change guided reading groupings and instructional reading levels. These changes impact the guided reading instruction that all students receive.

2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

Intervention Set-Up:

As the school year concludes, a collaborative effort ensues among teachers and administrators organized by both grade levels and vertical teams to prepare for the upcoming year. Their primary objective is to strategically group students based on their proficiency levels in reading and math, laying the foundation for the upcoming academic year. This collaborative group examines each grade level as a cohort, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of students' needs.

Within a standard grade level team consisting of five classes, the team constructs classes tailored to the specific requirements of each cohort. This customization results in a diverse class structure, including an intensive intervention class, an accelerated learning class, two average classes, and a medium-low class. The intensive intervention classes are named the G.R.I.T class (Grove Readers Reaching Individual Targets), they are designed to provide targeted support for students facing particular challenges. In the G.R.I.T classes, we implement the RISE model for reading. Our K-2 grade level classes are self-contained (Example of 2nd Grade Roster), and our 3rd-5th grade teachers are departmentalized  (Example of 3rd Grade Roster). The upper grades have six separate ELA classes, to ensure small class sizes. The six ELA classes flow into four math classes when they switch subjects. All teachers have push-in intervention support for the lower math classes and push-in support for the lower reading classes from our interventionists, sped teachers, and/or ML teachers. Intervention Schedule

Teachers and administrators collaborate closely, looking at data and insights from the previous academic year. This data-driven approach enables them to discern individual student trends and identify specific learning needs. The ultimate goal is to place students in classrooms that align with their unique requirements. This strategic grouping allows the teacher's instructional pace and the student's learning needs to align, promoting effective intervention for those who need it and challenging acceleration for those ready for more advanced content.

This collaborative process not only recognizes the diversity of student abilities but we can specifically tailor their education within the classroom. It ensures that each classroom is a dynamic learning environment where both intervention and acceleration are integrated, providing a supportive and effective educational experience for all students.

Tier 1:

  • All teachers have uninterrupted, protected time built into their daily schedule to ensure all students receive Tier 1 core instruction in all subject areas.
  • Collaborative teams meet weekly to discuss the 4 critical questions.
  • Teachers work collaboratively to:
  1. Identify essential standards, learning targets, and mastery levels for each standard.
  2. Develop pretests (as needed) CFAs, and summative assessments for each unit before instruction. This guarantees a common understanding of mastery before instruction. 
  3. Design Tier 1 instruction and prevention loop strategies to help students reach standards mastery. CFA results are analyzed and used to plan prevention loop instruction.
  4. Develop Tier 2 interventions depending on the needs of their classes. Interventions are based on student data from CFA’s and end-of-unit summative assessments.
  5. Plan Tier 2 extension activities to deepen the knowledge of students who have shown mastery of essential standards.

Tier 2:

  • As stated above, teachers look at their grade levels as cohorts to ensure we are looking at all students and sharing the responsibility as a team. Collaborative teams have the autonomy to move students in and out of reading groups and/or math groups as needed within the grade level. This guarantees the mentality that teachers are not responsible just for their individual classes but “all students” within their grade level.
  • Teachers analyze data with the collaboration of their teams, interventionists, ML teachers, the reading coach, admin, and resource teachers to identify students who need additional practice during collaborative meetings from CFA’s and summative assessments to adjust their small group instruction within the classroom.
  • Teachers also work collaboratively with their teams, reading coach, and admin to develop strategies to accelerate the instruction of the students who have already mastered the essential standards. Data is collected and closely monitored to adjust student groupings as needed. After a review of student data, we moved away from our traditional Gifted and Talented pull-out program and instead serve these students within the classroom by teachers that also have Gifted and Talented endorsement. We have seen significant gains with our students who are identified as Gifted and Talented.
  • Teachers administer STAR testing to all students a minimum of three times per year. This data is analyzed and used to create intervention action plans for students
  • Targeted intervention occurs in identified classrooms in which interventionists and the classroom teacher provide small group instruction at their level to close learning gaps. Students in these classes are fluid and move in or out depending on their progress including mastery of essential standards. Teachers and interventions use data and assess students' understanding of broader concepts such as phonological awareness (At times students receive instruction considered more Tier 3.)
  • Teachers reteach in small groups within the classroom to provide additional strategies/instruction to ensure students have mastered essential standards.
  • Teachers use the F&P Benchmark Assessment System three times per year to conduct formal running records and determine student instructional reading levels. The information provided by these assessments is used to differentiate small-group reading instruction.

Tier 3:

  • In K4 and K5, Each homeroom class has a block of time designated for Tier 3 instruction for students who are significantly behind. The designated Tier 3 time is always separate from Tier 1 instruction so that new learning gaps are not created and so that students never miss Tier 1 instruction.
  • In 1st and 2nd grade, each grade level team has at least one class that is an intensive intervention class for students who are significantly below grade level in reading and math. Students still receive the same Tier 1 instruction as the other classes, however, the primary intervention framework (for reading) used is the RISE model. Instruction is adapted to fit the needs of the learner based on data that is analyzed in collaborative teams. The hour-long block of reading intervention is a flexible time that once students have made significant gains in reading, and are reading on grade level, the teachers will then collaborate and flex students to another class during reading at the same time. Math interventionists also push in during math time to co-teach or assist in reteaching essential standards or new content that has been presented in small groups within this class. To assist other teachers in 1st and 2nd grade who may have students who need extra support in the other homerooms the pull-out model is used by the interventionist, resource teacher, and ML teacher.
  • In 3rd-5th grades, each grade level also has at least one class or more that serves as an intensive reading intervention class for students who are significantly below grade level in reading and math. Data collected from STAR, F&P, CFA’s, and CSA’s are used to identify students who are significantly behind. Based on this data, students are identified for intervention classes or pull-out reading intervention. The primary intervention framework used is the RISE model in the push-in classes for students who are more than a year behind. The teachers using the RISE model in the intensive intervention classes are the classroom teachers, interventions, sped teachers, and ML teachers. Intervention groups are updated approximately every 9 weeks as needed. 
  • If collaborative teams are seeing students accelerate in class and no longer need an intensive intervention class they will be moved to a class that best fits their needs. Data is collected from STAR testing, F&P benchmarks, CFA’s, and Summative assessments to closely monitor and adjust student groupings as needed for acceleration as well.
  •  Action plans are implemented during collaborative meeting times with teachers, administrators, and reading coaches to ensure the best placements for students when considering moving a student to another class. This is a team decision and parents are always notified of the adjustments. Teachers take into consideration the academic, behavioral, and emotional needs of the student before moving them into another class for acceleration or intervention.
  • Math interventions are served similarly. 3rd-5th grade math classes are ability-grouped similar to the reading classes. Math interventionists and/or resource teachers push in or pull out students who need extra support in 3rd-5th grade classrooms. They collaborate with teachers during collaborative team meetings to adjust the needs of learners meeting essential standards. STAR data, CFA’s, and summative assessments drive interventions used during instruction. Teachers have the flexibility to switch students out by 9 weeks to receive extra support if they are struggling to master certain skills.

Students who have received interventions in Tier 1, 2, and 3 blocks but continue to not meet grade-level standards are referred to the school’s Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) team. This team meets monthly and takes a team approach to discuss student progress, developing an intervention plan for those students, and progress-monitoring growth toward goals.

3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.

Team Meetings

  • Time to participate in weekly collaborative team meetings within the contract day is protected for homeroom teachers. Each collaborative team meets 90 minutes per week within the contract day between 2:30-3:15 twice a week. Assistants and non-homeroom staff provide student supervision at dismissal to ensure this time. All faculty members receive ongoing Professional Development on the real work of PLCs and the PLC process. Job-embedded professional development and learning are key.
  • Each collaborative team has built a grade level HUB that includes essential standards, data protocols, norms, and planning tools for their team.
  • Collaborative team agendas ensure meetings are purposeful, efficient, and focused on student learning. Norms are reviewed, student data is analyzed, teams collaborate on CFAs, create/revise unit plans, and plan for interventions and extensions. Meetings conclude with a reflection component which identifies if norms were followed, what went well, what areas to improve, and outlines the next meeting.
  • Tier 2 and Tier 3 teachers (Reading Intervention, Speech, Resource, and ESOL teachers) attend weekly meetings. They collaborate with teams to implement best practices to support student growth and ensure learning at high levels for all students.

Guiding Coalition

  • The Guiding Coalition (GC) meets 1-2 times monthly and consists of team facilitators, related arts teachers, and each of the members of the school’s leadership team. One of our 3rd-grade teachers is the facilitator for our school’s Guiding Coalition.
  • The Guiding Coalition has an agenda that is used including our norms that are reviewed at each meeting.
  • The primary purpose of the GC is to be the model collaborative team of the school and to champion the PLC process.
  • A portion of each GC meeting is devoted to professional learning. GC members review and discuss Solution Tree resources relevant to our PLC journey. These resources are used to strengthen our facilitators and collaborative teams.

 

Continued Learning and Professional Development

Solution Tree experts have provided various professional development (PD) sessions for our school and district. These PD sessions have addressed the beginning implementation of PLCs, the development of proficiency maps and unit plans, and the use of assessments in the PLC process.

 

2018-2019:

  • The Principal and Assistant Principal attended The Summit on PLC at Work. Cedar Grove began the process of teaching staff and building shared knowledge around the four questions and the PLC process

2019-2020: 

  • Dr. Luis Cruz trained GC members on PLCs and their impact on student learning. The guiding coalition revised and rewrote the mission, vision, and beliefs to better reflect PLC practices. 
  • School administrators led faculty and established Cedar Grove’s collective commitments, norms, and non-negotiables. Collaborative teams used the REAL method to identify essential standards.

2020-2021:

  • Collaborative teams continued to meet under COVID-19 safety protocols. The school’s focus was on team-built common formative assessments.

2021-2022:

  • Cedar Grove leadership attended PD from Solution Tree consultant, Dr. Kim Nichols on Rebooting PLCs: Moving from Lite to Right. The administrative team then led collaborative teams through the process of revisiting essential standards, identifying learning targets, creating proficiency maps, and developing unit plans.
  • Cedar Grove’s principal visited a Model PLC School and district in Georgia.
  • A team of teachers attended a PLC at Work Institute.

2022-2023:

  • Teachers attended PD from Solution Tree experts Dr. Kim Nichols, Dr. Pamela Liebenberg, and Mrs. Cassandra Erkins centered around assessments. Teams became more adept at creating quality assessments and analyzing the data to plan instruction and interventions.
  • Teachers were provided with two half days of school to participate in TALK (Teachers Advancing Learning for Kids) PD. This time was used to continue work on proficiency maps, unit plans, and CFAs.

2023-2024

  • Cedar Grove’s leadership team and members of the Guiding Coalition received training from Michael Maffoni from Solution Tree on coaching collaborative teams, using Strategy Implementation Guides and Pathways to Proficiency. The district collaboratively created the district’s Collaborative Coaching Instrument that is now used in each school including Cedar Grove.

Achievement Data Files

Additional Achievement Data

Perhaps the most encouraging part of this PLC journey is that we have seen such great results in our student achievement. Our school has performed extremely well including above our state and district averages in  ELA and Math. This is especially encouraging considering our district is consistently one of the top five achieving districts in our state. When we moved to a results orientation and a focus on learning instead of just teaching, we saw substantial improvement. We have especially seen tremendous growth in the past year. This includes a 7% increase in the percentage of students scoring meets or exceeds on our SC Ready state testing in Math and a 9% increase in ELA. Our school scores were a 5-year high in all subject areas on SC Ready. Our school doubled the number of students who scored a 4 or higher on the Text Dependent Analysis portion of SC Ready ELA. 

Our 4th grade students showed an 18% increase in ELA from their 3rd grade scores and a 15% increase in Math. Each year as part of our school report card, each grade level receives a growth measure that measures growth in each demographic area and also the growth of our top 20% and bottom 20% of our students. Our 4th grade received a perfect 40 out of 40 points for this growth measure. To our knowledge, this is the first time ever in our district that a grade level has obtained this. 

Throughout the school year, collaborative teams closely monitor student mastery of essential standards. Each team agrees upon a system of collecting and analyzing student data to determine mastery of grade-level essential standards. Teams track mastery of learning targets, assessed through CFAs, along with the mastery of overarching essential standards, through summative assessments. 

As a PLC, we continuously track student growth through team-developed assessments (pretests, CFAs, and summative assessments) as well as through benchmark testing and universal screening tools such as our STAR Assessment. As shown in the data provided, our student achievement has been positively impacted through our commitment to the PLC process and reaching all learners.

  • Anderson School District One was recognized as a Model PLC District
  • Cedar Grove Elementary School received Palmetto Gold for the 2022-2023 School Year
  • Cedar Grove Elementary School received an SC Department of Education rating of Excellent each of the last two years. 

Top