Tell us how you created a successful PLC

PLC STORY

As a Middle School we have systems that focus on the academic, social and emotional well being of the students.  Each grade has three interdisciplinary teams of teachers that teach and support approximately 110 students.  Using these smaller “schools within a school,” teachers ensure that students are well known and connected to the community through a robust advisory program.  For a number of years, teams of teachers have met regularly to discuss the needs of students holistically, often noting strengths and areas in need of improvement. While students are well served by a strong faculty within these systems and structures, ten years ago we recognized a lack of consistent student experience among some of our academic programs. We needed to create a structure for teachers of the same discipline to meet and discuss curriculum, assessments, teaching methods and individual student progress.

During this improvement process it became clear that we needed to review how we used our student contact and teacher preparation time more effectively.  We restructured our schedule to build departmental common planning.  Having this logistical piece in place allowed for subject-specific teams to meet on a regular basis creating our first opportunity to work within Professional Learning Communities (PLCs).

While the new schedule made time available for teachers and coincided with curricular initiatives that required subject-specific teams to work more closely together, it did not guarantee student learning focused collaboration.   PLC teams began to work together to consider our stated curriculum and clarify what we wanted students to know and be able to do, but individual teachers were still creating their own assessments. As we sought direction to ensure the effective use of this time to improve results we began to explore Professional Learning Communities as a possible structure to ensure collaboration among colleagues focused on student achievement.  Rick Dufour and Robert Eaker’s Professional Learning Communities at Work, Mike Schmoker’s Results and the All Things PLC website, among other resources, became our guides.

We learned that many of our faculty had different ideas of what Professional Learning Communities are based on past experience or misconceptions.  We made a decision to spend the full academic year 2011-12 creating a common understanding of PLCs.  Teacher leaders and administrators facilitated discussions on related professional texts at faculty meetings.  As a result, our grade level departments discussions began to change.  Instead of focusing on meaningless logistics, we discussed what we wanted students to know and be able to do and began to plan common assessments.  Through this professional development and collaboration we became aware of the need to identify and react to students who needed further support or challenge.

In August of 2012, with newly identified PLC leaders in place for each grade level department and for our elective and singleton teachers, we implemented a more formalized framework where PLCs would work through the four PLC questions when implementing curriculum.  Given that some of our departments were not consistently teaching the same standards, we spent a lot of time on the first year on Question One.  The PLC leaders met once a month to discuss challenges and seek growth and solutions.  Using a number of models suggested at a PLC Conference we began to get traction on Questions One and Two.  The teams began to teach the same standards and use common assessments.

Now in our eighth year, we continue to mature with the use of data to inform instruction and to plan for intervention and extension. Last year we committed to our divisional power standards and audited our common assessments for alignment. In September of 2017, we co-hosted with Solution Tree a Professional Learning Communities at Work Institute and all of our PLC leaders and new faculty members attended. We continue to look for ways to support our PLC leaders, including training with Adaptive Schools and Cognitive Coaching. 

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

Monitoring student learning on a timely basis

Given the focus on student results we designed a schedule that allows teachers time to meet regularly within the school day. Our PLC teams meet at least once a week with clearly stated norms and purpose.  Some teams have found it valuable to meet up to three times a week in order to discuss learning outcomes, assessments, regrouping for intervention and extension and instructional activities. Our schedule is designed to ensure this time is during the academic day to avoid interruptions and ensure meetings serve as job embedded professional development and timely response to data.

To ensure the teams have the resources they need we have appointed teacher leaders and support positions to better serve them.  Each PLC has a dedicated teacher leader responsible for setting agendas and focusing the work on the four questions. These teachers also meet regularly to learn from one another.  We added an Academic Data Coordinator for the whole school that can assist PLC leaders in accessing external data, as well as give guidance on how to use technology to more efficiently identify students who need additional support or challenge. We recently added a second Instructional Coach to help us continue building capacity among the teachers and ensuring they are developing the right tools to serve students in a timely fashion.

While we still are growing in our use of data, we have added a number of structures to assist the PLCs. We use the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) tests for an external assessment of our programs and individual student growth. Using this data and our own common assessments we can identify students learning needs more efficiently. Because our students typically score high on the MAP we are utilizing a Virtual Comparison Group (VCG) to compare our individual student results with students of like age, gender, baseline score and socioeconomic status.  This allows us to ensure we are challenging and supporting all levels of learners. Our PLCs set SMART goals based on either external or internal common assessment data. 

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

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

With our move to focus on the academic growth and success of all students including those who need additional support or extension, we have improved a number of existing structures and created new ones.  We have Learning Support Teachers at each grade level that support struggling students by developing strategies and offering additional subject specific support in Reading and Language Arts and Math.  Our Learning Support model is responsive and that team of teachers works with any students, identified with needs or not, to support intervention and extension. Weekly Interdisciplinary Team “Kid Chats,” give teachers and the grade level counselor an opportunity to assess the student’s overall success and decide programmatic needs while PLC teams focus on the students specific success in the subject and seek new interventions.  

We have created pyramids of intervention for support and extension as well as one for behavior.  Use of the pyramids to drive discussion regarding specific strategies used to meet the needs of students is progressing. The key purpose now is to ensure we have worked through Tier One and Two methods before seeking the more substantial intervention of our Learning Support Program in Tier Three. 

As we have become more focused on the four questions we have started piloting and implementing other strategies to ensure students have time and support to achieve their learning targets.  To meet the needs of higher level learners more PLCs are planning for extension as a part of unit development.  For students who are struggling each PLC has identified the “need to know” power standards, and “nice to know” standards that will clarify where we focus our intervention energy. Our move to standards based grading has separated learning behaviors from academic reporting allowing students and teachers to identify areas of success and growth. In addition, each grade level has specific blocked time they can flex to address student learning.

As our PLCs have started sharing data, many departments have are sharing students based on learning needs and teacher instructional strategies.  As one example, our Spanish department of three teachers uses their common assessments to identify specific learning targets for each student and then groups them for teachers to challenge or support them. This is done on a regular basis, so groupings change from unit to unit. This serves as a model as we learn and grow in the division.

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

Explain how you built high-performing, collaborative teams to focus efforts on improved student learning

Our Middle School had a culture of collaboration based on our interdisciplinary teams and a few departmental grade levels that already had a high level consistency for what they wanted students to know and be able to do. These pockets of collaboration served us well as we embarked to refocus on student academic achievement across the division.

During the 2011-12 academic year we used every Faculty Meeting to create common understanding and clear group expectations.  PLCs learned about common assessments and how to react to the data.  While we had not formally implemented the process, teachers began to create common assessments and process their expectations of student learning.  We also identified teacher leaders that had the respect of their colleagues and invited them to take on the PLC leadership role.  

During our implementation year the MS admin team created a PLC handbook as a guide. (see under resources) PLC leaders created norms with the teams and began to focus on the four questions.  During this year MS Admin team members were assigned to specific grade level departments and joined PLC meetings.  In addition, we had monthly PLC leader meetings to learn from and support one another.  

The Admin team invited PLC leaders to join them in the interview process for new teachers.  This helped set clear expectations for the type of collaboration we needed on our teams and offered rich input from the teacher leaders who would be working directly with new hires.  It further developed the trust between the teachers and admin and has led to stronger hires.  Finally, the new teachers are joining with a strong support system ensuring their orientation gives them the curriculum guidance, assessments and data they need to successful support our students. As a result of a clear guiding structure focused on student results and building a culture of inclusiveness collaboration has become the Middle School’s modus operandi.

Additional Achievement Data

All PLCs now write, revise and collaborate on common assessments.  In addition to the data that guides us from common assessment we compare ourselves against the US National average from NWEA MAP.  We also compare against international schools from the East Asia Regional Council of Overseas Schools (EARCOS).  We also use viritual comparison groups from all students who take the MAP test.  Our students can be compared against 50 students with like backgrounds as a comparison. 

NWEA MAP tests allow us to:

• gain individual student growth data twice over the academic calendar year
• identify areas for growth and challenge for individual students
• check our overall program from year to year

Average Spring NWEA Measuring Academic Progress (MAP) Scores

2016-17

	Mathematics			Reading			Language
	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA
6	242	237	225	229	223	216	228	223	215
7	248	246	229	234	227	218	232	227	218
8	257	252	231	238	231	220	235	230	219

 

2015-16

	Mathematics			Reading			Language
	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA
6	238	237	225	229	223	216	228	223	215
7	246	249	229	234	227	218	232	227	218
8	251	256	231	237	231	220	230	235	219

 

 

2014-15

	Mathematics			Reading			Language
	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA
6	231	231	218	224	219	211	222	220	211
7	241	238	223	229	224	214	228	224	214
8	248	246	226	233	228	217	231	227	216

 

2013-14

Grade	Reading			Language Usage			Math
	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA
6	230	218	216	229	220	216	240	232	226
7	232	223	220	230	224	218	245	241	213
8	235	226	222	232	226	221	251	247	235

 

 

2012-13

Grade	Reading			Language Usage			Math
	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA
6	228	217	216	228	217	228	240	230	226
7	232	219	219	230	220	230	246	236	230
8	236	225	221	233	225	233	251	243	234

 

 

2011-12

Grade	Reading			Language Usage			Math
	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA	SAS	EARCOS	NWEA
6	229	217	216	227	216	216	242	229	226
7	232	221	220	230	220	219	249	235	231
8	236	226	222	234	225	221	255	240	235

 

 

Apple Distinguished School

National History Day: In 2013-2017 SAS is represented by student teams and individuals who successfully earned a spot in the national competitions in Washington DC.

Math Counts: SAS is regularly represented by students who participate as a member of the US State Department Team at the MathCounts National Competiton

PISA Results 2013: SAS average scores on the computer-based assessments in mathematics and reading posted higher than the top-ranked country of Singapore in both catagories.

• Mathematics: SAS=588, Singapore (#1)=566, USA (#15)=498

• Reading: SAS=633, Singapore (#1)=567, USA (#12)=511

Files

• msplcleaderhandbookv1-docx.docx
• sas-institutional-commitments-5722.docx