***PROMISING PRACTICES SCHOOL***

In 2018, a local bond was passed to consolidate three elementary schools with declining enrollment and a combined TEA rating of “F”.

In year one, we were not only building relationships among all staff, but we were having to redefine “Professional Learning Communities”, and break old habits of what some believed were PLCs.

At the beginning of the year, teachers underwent a campus training on becoming “data literate”. Teachers worked with their teams on determining specific skills for students and plan for reteaching skills in tier 1 instruction. 

Throughout the year, administrators facilitated much of the weekly conversations, developing agendas that sparked collaboration among teachers. At the end of each grading period, two campuses came together for a data dig. Teachers would use district assessments to analyze data and plan for instruction and intervention, targeting students and skills.

During year two, teams worked together to create their own commitments for the first time using 6 Tips for Creating Commitments. Teachers were also learning the true definition of common formative assessments, although still at different campuses. Administrators adjusted the master schedule to allow maximum time for teams at these two campuses to work together.

We introduced how to determine essential standards using the REAL acronym. Grade level teams worked to determine these essentials and shared them with vertical teams. 

Throughout the school year, teachers worked collaboratively in the hour to plan lessons for instruction, intervention, and assessments. Administrators created an anchor chart, and teams communicated where they were in the process. 

Then, COVID. When there was a drastic shift in how school looked, it quickly became evident that collaboration with others was needed more than ever. Teachers continued collaborating, now through our Hangouts. 

In the fall of 2020, as campus administrators were learning how to support teachers, while upholding the expectations for team collaborations, we added the third campus. Again, teams created norms, determined essentials, with team leaders now in charge of agendas and facilitating most of the collaboration.

After COVID, administrators felt the need to have a reset. Our reminders consisted of the mission, vision, and core values that would help us transition into one campus. We created our Guiding Coalition, who served as team leaders and advocates for positivity, progress, and the PLC process. Teams participated in continuous reflection of where they thought their team was when referring to the stages of a PLC. 

In the fourth year, we were able to build on what we started, but now as one campus. We focused on becoming more collaborative as a school family in order to support student achievement and progress. There was a shift in mindsets, including understanding that these were “our kids” now. Classrooms were the students’ learning space and co-labs were for grade level teams.

During this year, we were privileged to have a Solution Tree associate work with us. At this point, teams collaborated at least three times per week. Mrs. Barbara Coleman showed us how to internalize essentials more effectively using a learning design template. Mrs. Coleman also helped us to refine our practices when pacing a grading period calendar to note CFAs. 

Also during this year, our specialist teachers became more involved in the process, meeting weekly to discuss enrichment for students implemented on Fridays. As a campus, we were also able to implement STRONG Data Days, where students would discuss their data and progress with a trusted adult in the building.

In year four, we received our accountability rating for the Texas Education Agency, growing from a projected F rating to a C. 

Year five brought more changes with the addition of students and staff from another closing campus. Our Guiding Coalition rose to the occasion, advocating for the process, while having their teams work collaboratively to solve issues amongst themselves. Our administrators, along with our instructional coaches, continued to reflect and refine our practices, including weekly huddles to discuss instruction, culture, and the systems put in place.

Through it all, team leaders facilitated collaboratives, and teams continued the work surrounding the four questions of the PLC process. Administrators and instructional coaches supported teams with resources such as anchor charts for their teacher co-labs, reminders of what to do when addressing the four questions, or revising agendas based on feedback and to best fit the needs of teams.

At the end of year five, we received a state accountability rating of a C, however we demonstrated growth in Domain I, which is student achievement.

This year, we continue to work as a professional learning community, understanding now that the entire campus is our PLC, and working in grade level teams during their collaboratives. 

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

During year two, teachers were learning the true definition of common formative assessments, working together to ensure students were being assessed on the similar essentials, in a similar way, and a similar time frame, although still at different campuses. At the beginning of this year, we introduced how to determine essential standards using the REAL acronym. Teachers in the same grade level and content area worked together to determine these essentials and shared them with vertical teams. During year four, our Solution Tree associate coach showed us ways to internalize essentials more effectively using a learning design template. Teachers were able to get in depth with the expectations they had set for students when learning the essential skills. Mrs. Coleman also helped us to refine our practices when pacing a grading period calendar. A small tweak of having teachers pause and insert a sticky note where they felt a CFA was warranted. This practice helped our teachers stay accountable for assessing and monitoring student progress towards the essential standards. As a campus, we were also able to implement STRONG Data Days, where students would discuss their data and progress with a trusted adult in the building that was not their core content teacher. Now, as we continue to refine our practices, with the district implementation of Amplify Reading and Eureka Math. We know that essentials are essentials. This is what we focus on, and communicated the expectation with instructional coaches and teachers. We have also shared a need for student discourse and implementation of interdependent strategies, so that teachers are able to assess student thinking using a rubric for strategically monitoring student progress towards essential skills. Teachers understand that Amplify and Eureka are templates to utilize as we focus on the essential standards. It is crucial that teachers determine what needs to be emphasized as they internalize the units and modules and determine how they will personalize execution of each lesson. What administrators and instructional coaches have communicated to be non-negotiable is determining what is essential, pacing the calendar for a grading period, internalizing lessons for Amplify units and Eureka modules highlighting their essentials, and determining when and how they will be assessed as a collaborative team. In order to help teachers through this internalization, we modified the learning design template. With the new LDT, teachers are expected to note how they will assess student progress using various tools. 

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

During year one, professional development trainings, we set aside time to work with two of the three initial campuses and their grade level teams on learning how to interpret student data and what to do with it when that was done. Teachers underwent a campus training on becoming “data literate”. Teachers were then sent to work with their teams on determining which students needed what skills for intervention and which skills needed to be retaught in tier I instruction. Although the campuses did not share students, they were able to work together and determine how to use the data to guide instruction and intervention. At the end of each grading period, the two campuses would come together for a data dig. With assistance from administrators and instructional coaches, teachers would use data from district assessments to analyze data and plan for instruction and intervention, targeting students and skills. In the spring of 2019, a team of teachers from all three campuses, along with campus and district administrators came together to create a floor plan that would be used when building the new elementary school. In this plan, teacher collaboration rooms were implemented for each grade level. This was a non-negotiable, as we knew our PLC journey was just beginning

In year two, administrators adjusted the master schedule to not only allow maximum time for collaboration, but this schedule also allowed for a dedicated intervention time for reading and math, strategically placed after tier I instruction.

Year three, our first year as one campus, teams were able to share students. We were able to build on what we started, becoming more cohesive as a school family and collaborative in order to support student achievement and progress. Our new building was designed with collaboration in mind. Each grade level has a hub. Each hub is surrounded by 5 classrooms, an intervention room, and a teacher collaboration room. The hub was complete with furniture fit for small group or student collaboration. A statement needed to be made to ensure there were clear expectations of how these hubs and collaborative spaces were to be utilized. It was communicated to teachers that the classrooms were the students’ learning space and the colabs were theirs. We were shifting from the small school, singleton idea of “my kids” to “our kids”.

Today, teams still have two dedicated intervention times, one for reading and one for math. We have also hired additional interventionists. We have three full time interventionists and five part-time to assist grade levels with reading and math intervention. These additional staff members are also scheduled during tier I instructional times in order to observe and assist with the execution of lessons. Small group instruction is also implemented, while there is addtional personnel in the classroom to address the needs of student receiving specialized services, and not present during the dedicated tier II intervention times.

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

This year, our district also implemented a new math curriculum, but having learned from the previous year’s implementation of Amplify Reading, teachers understand that Eureka Math is a template to utilize, as we focus on the essential standards. It is crucial that teachers determine what needs to be emphasized as they internalize the modules, and determine how they will personalize execution of the lesson. Non-negotiables that have been communicated are determining what is essential, pacing the calendar for a grading period, internalizing lessons for Amplify units and Eureka modules highlighting their essentials, and determining when and how they will be assessed as a collaborative team. In order to help teachers through this internalization, we modified the learning design template to fit the needs of our teams. Other revisions made based on feedback from teachers were our agendas to include all links to any and all resources they would need to help support them as they worked. Teams also reflected on their practice using the stages of a collaborative team. While creating team commitments, teams determined what stage they felt they were, looked to see what they needed to do to move to the next stage, created a team goal, and revised their commitments, if needed. During checkpoints throughout the year, teams will reflect on where they are on their team goal in order to refine their practices. 

Throughout the past six years, we have worked towards continued progress on our instructional practices with student outcomes constantly in mind. We budget every year to be able to send a team to Solution Tree events in order to maintain the work. Our goal to become a PLC model campus comes with constant reflection and refinement.

Achievement Data Files

• promising-practices-eoe-data-template-7100.xlsx

Additional Achievement Data

Please note where this is an "*", the state did not provide us data due to not having enough students to create a subgroup.

Since the consolidation in 2021-2022, there has been growth in every area with the exception of 4th and 5th grade reading. In 2022-2023, our fifth year, the district implemented Amplify Reading, and the state of Texas administered a new version of the state assessment. In 5th grade, the percentage of students meeting grade level expectations went down 1% point. We really do not have a reason for this except for what was previously stated. It was the same teacher the two school years, and she does work a as a singleton in her grade level. However, in 4th grade, in 2021-2022, we had some changes in staff that resulted in our instructional coach, who is also a seasoned teacher, teaching 4th grade for the second semester. The following year, we were down to singletons in 4th grade, having a more novice teacher teaching 4th grade reading. Again, this was the year that our district implemented Amplify Reading, and the state administered a new version of the state assessment. We feel this is the reason for a declination the last two year in 4th grade reading.

Because our present campus is only in the third year of existence, our only reward thus far is the growth in student academic progress.

Images

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Files

• what-is-a-plc_.pdf