SITE SEARCH

INSPIRATIONAL STORIES

Send Your School's
Inspirational PLC Story

[-] text size [+]

Albemarle High School

School Information

School Name: Albemarle High School
School Address: 2775 Hydraulic Road, Charlottesville, VA 22901
School Phone: 434-975-9300
School Fax: 434-974-4335
Principal: Principal Jay Thomas
Principal Email: jthomas@k12albemarle.org
Former Principal: Dr. Matthew S. Haas, Director of Secondary Education, Albemarle County Public Schools
Web Address: http://schoolcenter.k12albemarle.org/education/school/school.php?sectionid=1638

Demographics

Number of Students: 1766
Number Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 296 -- 16.76%
Percent of Limited English Proficient: 126 -- 7.13%
Percent of Special Education: 246 -- 13.9%
Racial/Ethnic Percentages:
- White 1259 -- 71.29%
- Black 288 -- 16.3%
- Hispanic 74 -- 4.19%
- Asian/Pacific Island 127 -- 7.19%
- Other 16 -- 0.9%

Student Achievement Data:

Student achievement in the school is clearly trending upward across the curriculum. Schools that are very high performing are able to sustain their high performance over time.

I am presenting trend data in a few different ways so that the depth of improvement can be seen. The first comment we would like to make is that for the school year of 2003-04, Albemarle High School did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for student pass rates in mathematics. At that time the pass rate bench mark for math was 59% for all enrollment groups. For English (reading), the bench mark was 61%.

When I started as principal in the fall of 2004, Dr. Dufour gave me advice on several key points, and he met and consulted with our school leadership teams. His key advice was to begin the work of common formative assessments immediately. We did, and we started on a journey toward full implementation of the Professional Learning Community (PLC) model. For that school year (2004 - 05), Albemarle High School made AYP for all subject areas and enrollment groups, and we have continued to do so each year for the past four, even as the benchmarks have been raised to 77% in reading and 75% in mathematics for the total school and for all enrollment groups. It is important to note as you read our demographic information that AHS is large enough and contains enough diversity for nearly all of our enrollment groups to count for AYP. Again, more detailed data will be presented.

Accreditation Adjusted Pass Rates from our Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Report Card:

The Commonwealth of Virginia accredits schools based on the overall achievement of students on Standards of Learning (SOL) tests and approved substitute assessments in English, mathematics, history/social science, and science. Adjusted pass rates represent achievement in all tested grade levels and allowances made for transfer students and limited English proficient students and credit awarded schools for the successful remediation of students. The pass rates listed are for the previous year's assessments.

Subject	2004-05 2003-04 Scores	2005-06 2004-05 Scores	2006-07 2005-06 Scores	2007-08 2006-07 Scores	2008-09 2007-08 Scores	2009-10 2008-09 Scores
English	90	89	88	94	96	96
Math	78	87	89	91	92	96
History	82	89	94	96	97	96
Science	80	87	93	94	95	95

Albemarle High School Pass Rates on Virginia Standards of Learning (SOL) End of Course Tests Comparative Trend Data for Enrollment Groups 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08:

The Commonwealth of Virginia measures student achievement through a high stakes testing program. We refer to the tests as the "SOL's." Since the advent of No Child Left Behind, we have monitored student progress by enrollment group. In Albemarle County and at AHS, our goal is for all students to succeed on these baseline measures regardless of whether their enrollment group counts toward our school making AYP. After sharing this data, I will go into details about how we have fostered and owned these trends over the past four years through the embedding of PLC structures and culture to support students.

Reading

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Reading	2005-06	89.6%	92.8%	76.4%	63.6%	68.2%	76%	72.1%
	2006-07	91.7%	95.6%	71.7%	83.3%	79.1%	76.7%	65.7%
	2007-08	96.9%	98.5%	88.3%	100%	87.9%	93.8%	89.9%
	2008-09	96%	98%	88%	94%	88%	97%	94%
Increase		7%	6%	12%	31%	20%	23%	22%

Writing

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Writing	2005-06	84.7%	90.5%	58.6%	80%	46.8%	66.7%	61%
	2006-07	92.4%	95.5%	77.3%	84.8%	70.7%	81.3%	68.6%
	2007-08	93.1%	*97.8%	*71.9%	*94.1%	*84.4%	*65.7%	*70%
	2008-09	94%	97%	83%	93%	75%	85%	74%
Increase		10%	7%	15%	13%	29%	19%	13%

World History I

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
World History I	2005-06	94.9%	98.6%	78.2%	94.4%	89.8%	93.3%	83.3%
	2006-07	96%	98%	85.5%	100%	92.2%	100%	89.2%
	2007-08	96.7%	97.9%	89.2%	100%	92.2%	100%	94%
	2008-09	97%	98%	94%	95%	88%	97%	91%
Increase		3%	0%	16%	1%	-1%	4%	8%

World History II

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
World History II	2005-06	93%	95%	77.8%	100%	93.1%	94.7%	77.8%
	2006-07	96%	97%	87%	100%	97%	100%	87.8%
	2007-08	97%	98%	88%	100%	97.3%	95.8%	80%
	2008-09	98%	98%	96%	100%	89%	100%	94%
Increase		5%	3%	19%	0%	-4%	6%	17%

VA & U.S. History

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
VA & U.S. History	2005-06	91.7%	95.2%	74.1%	87.5%	81.4%	94.4%	81.1%
	2006-07	93%	95.8%	83.7%	76.9%	84.6%	82.8%	80.6%
	2007-08	96.9%	99.4%	86.6%	93.8%	91.8%	90%	86.2%
	2008-09	95%	98%	82%	88%	81%	88%	78%
Increase		4%	3%	8%	1%	0%	-6%	-3%

Algebra I

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Algebra I	2005-06	92%	95%	84%	93%	86%	88%	87%
	2006-07	96%	97%	95%	92%	90%	96%	96%
	2007-08	96%	95%	95%	100%	89%	100%	95%
	2008-09	97%	98%	94%	100%	86%	100%	96%
Increase		5%	3%	10%	7%	0%	12%	9%

Geometry

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Geometry	2005-06	84%	90%	44%	75%	61%	88%	69%
	2006-07	84%	90%	64%	57%	64%	68%	71%
	2007-08	89%	93%	72%	88%	74%	93%	70%
	2008-09	91%	94%	75%	93%	83%	86%	78%
Increase		7%	4%	31%	18%	22%	-2%	9%

Algebra II

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Algebra II	2005-06	92%	93%	88%	88%	86%	90%	87%
	2006-07	86%	88%	58%	100%	75%	100%	73%
	2007-08	90%	91%	78%	90%	82%	95%	76%
	2008-09	98%	97%	100%	90%	90%	100%	100%
Increase		6%	4%	12%	2%	4%	10%	13%

Earth Science

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Earth Science	2005-06	87%	96%	62%	82%	77%	66%	66%
	2006-07	87%	95%	60%	100%	81%	79%	64%
	2007-08	91%	95%	77%	91%	86%	78%	76%
	2008-09	90%	95%	78%	84%	76%	69%	75%
Increase		3%	-1%	13%	2%	-1%	3%	9%

Biology

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Biology	2005-06	90%	95%	65%	76%	75%	83%	77%
	2006-07	94%	97%	83%	88%	86%	89%	80%
	2007-08	94%	98%	72%	91%	92%	83%	74%
	2008-09	93%	95%	82%	86%	76%	83%	77%
Increase		3%	0%	17%	10%	1%	0%	0%

Chemistry

Subject	Year	Total	White	Black	Hispanic	Special Ed.	ESOL	Free & Reduced
Chemistry	2005-06	96%	96%	100%	100%	77%	100%	88%
	2006-07	97%	98%	87%	100%	93%	100%	100%
	2007-08	99%	99%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
	2008-09	98%	100%	87%	100%	100%	100%	90%
Increase		2%	14%	-13%	0%	22.3%	0%	2%

One final way to look at our SOL testing improvement over the past four years is to look at the 77 reporting categories (tests & groups). For the 2008 - 09 year, one of our strategic goals as a school was to have all of our reporting categories at or above 85% passing. In 2005-2006, fewer than half (33) of our reporting categories met this criterion. In 2008-2009, 60 met it.

Advanced Program / College Level Studies Participation from our Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) Report Card:

Virginia considers the percentage of students enrolled in advanced programs as a key indicator of school quality at the secondary level.

	Student Count & Percentage of All Students
Program Type	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09
Advanced Placement Test Taken	270 / 15.72%	368 / 20.69%	212/ 11.93%
Advanced Placement Course Enrollment	295 / 17.17%	404 / 22.71%	224/12.61%
Dual Enrollment Course Taken	171 / 9.95%	105 / 5.9%	238/13.39%

SAT Participation Reported from our County Assessment Office:

Participation in the SAT indicates student desire and effort toward continuing further eduction. I think that this final piece of student achievement data reflects well on our staff, in particular our guidance staff, in their work with students to make a personalized plan for a career and higher education. Please note that while our participation rate is 19% higher than that for Virginia, our average scores are well above the state and national averages.

AHS 2008 SAT Scores & Participation	USA	VA	AHS
Verbal	502	511	547
Math	515	512	543
Writing	494	499	534
% of Grads	not available	63%	82%

Commitment to PLC Concepts:

As part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we surveyed staff members in March of 2008 to take stock of their investment in teacher leadership through the PLC model. I have attached the summary responses to the survey and labeled them as Attachment 1. You will note that one department is not represented in the survey, and that is our Career and Technical Education Department. That department changed leadership twice over the past three years, and the members of that department wanted a year to begin embedding processes as a team before being assessed as part of the survey. We gave them a pass; when we survey this year, they will
participate.

When we started in the PLC direction, I decided that all departments would participate, not just core academic departments. We want all staff to take ownership of students, and we can all grow and learn from each other as professionals. We use the collaborative model for special education instruction at AHS, so special education teachers work on PLC content teams for the disciplines in which they collaborate and are integral parts of these teams. Our overall responses to the survey indicate changing and embedding PLC work. Our school has been invested in this process for over three years, and I think staff associate the improvements in student results with PLC work.

Evidence of a Commitment to Learning for All Students:

Teachers in our school have worked in collaborative teams for the past four years (including this year) to build shared knowledge regarding state standards, district
curriculum guides, the content and format of high stakes assessments, and the expectations of the teachers in the course or grade level above them to clarify the essential knowledge
and skills all students must acquire in each unit of instruction for their course or grade level.

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

This statement relates back to item (1) on the survey. All departments assessed themselves at a three or higher, indicating fragile changes to deep embedding of this practice. Our eight departments are currently divided into content teams based on the specific subjects they teach. For example, the Math department is divided into the Algebra I Team, Geometry Team, Algebra II Team, and the Higher Math Team. Each team meets twice per month for 80 minutes to work on improving student learning through common formative assessment, data analysis, strategy sharing, and intervention planning. These meetings take place according to our Period 8 Calendar, Attachment 2. Period 8 is our intervention, remediation, enrichment, and PLC meeting time during the school day. I will touch on that in other items.

The collaborative teams of teachers have clarified the specific proficiency standards students must achieve on each skill and the criteria they will use in assessing each student’s
proficiency. They have practiced applying the criteria to ensure consistent reliable assessment of student learning. They help students to understand the criteria and to use the
criteria to monitor their own learning.

On Attachment 1, you will find that our responses for item (2) parts A and B relate to this statement. For both items, you will find that departments rated themselves in the changing to embedding stages. Attachment 3 to this document is the Albemarle High School Detailed Analysis of Student Work form. This form was adapted by Mr. Foss, our now retired Science Department Chair, and me in an effort to create a consistent approach to examining student work for proficiency. We wanted to assist teachers and provide staff development around the question, "What does proficiency look like?" When you examine the form, you will see all three key PLC questions addressed in a process that leads a teacher from the lay of the land to examining individual student work samples: What do we expect students to learn? How do we know they are learning? How will we respond based on this knowledge of student results? Most departments use these forms if they are not using the school system's data warehouse, School Net, to break down student data by standard and enrollment group. This process was the nerve center of PLC work over the backbone of common formative assessment.

Our school has a process for carefully monitoring each student’s learning on an ongoing basis. This frequent monitoring of student learning includes common assessments created
the collaborative team of teachers responsible for the same group of students.

On Attachment 1, you will note that this statement correlates to item (3), and this item had a strong response across departments, with only the Art department registering "fragile changes." When we started this process at AHS in 2004 - 05, we began with a common midyear assessment for all content teams. We didn't provide specific team time for this work, and it was tough to get it done. Nevertheless, the staff did respond by creating these assessments, analyzing the data by enrollment group, and taking steps toward intervention. We didn't have a designated intervention period at the time, so our SOL testing coordinator, Theresa Doherty, traveled during lunch, providing pizza for students and the staff who volunteered to provide intervention for the students in the spring prior to SOL testing. Thanks to this tough effort, we had data to show at the outset of the next school year that intensive intervention works. We made AYP, and students who received the intervention time and support passed their tests.

From that beginning, we have evolved into regular PLC meeting times. Every team gives at minimum, a common quarterly assessment, and many embed common items for analysis in every unit assessment. Several use on-line testing programs like School Net and Quia, and most are moving in that direction. Others are using other forms of data collection and analysis like common writing rubrics or task standards. Common assessment was the key to beginning the PLC process. It was the biggest hurdle to overcome, but we have embedded this process in our work.

Our school has a planned process for responding when students experience difficulty in learning rather than leaving it to the individual classroom teacher to resolve. This
coordinated process ensures students receive additional time and support for learning in a way that is timely, directive (rather than invitational), and systematic. Students are not
required to miss new direct instruction to receive this additional support.

Elaboration on Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning:

This item correlates to item (5) and (6) on the Attachment 1, the survey of instructional leadership and teamwork. Both items refer to a system of interventions and requiring students rather than inviting them for intervention. You will see on the attachment that all departments rated themselves as in the process of change or in the process of embedding this work.

During my first year at AHS, two "structures" were in place to provide intervention. Both were in place for a long time, and neither was required or timely. The first was "long lunch." Long lunch occurred twice per week on average. AHS has a 1,700 plus student body. Twice per week, we had only one lunch where all students ate lunch at the same time for an hour all over the building. Originally, this idea was in place to support clubs and make up work and extra help time for teachers and students who needed it. Over time, however, it simply became a long lunch period where no clubs met on a regular basis, and very few students sought extra help since it was not mandatory. The second structure was "make up day." At one time, we ran an alternating day schedule with a "skinny period" that met every day. Once per six-weeks grading period, students received an interim report. Make up day occurred during the one-hour skinny period after progress reports went out. Again, students were not required to go and get help. Many teachers did not have classes during the skinny period, so they were not available for students. Teachers who already had full classes were supposed to help students during this period. Students did not need a pass ahead of time, so they could just roam the hall.

In 2005-06, we instituted an intervention period that met four days per week for just under 40 minutes by robbing other class periods and the 10 minute passing times that occurred between classes. We called it LEAP (Learning Enrichment and Activity Period). All teachers had a LEAP period class assigned to them, so everyone was responsible for students. Students could visit other teachers with a pre-arranged pass, and we set up special classes for students who needed extra help to prepare for SOL tests based on Mid-Year Assessments. We also set up a class covering system so that PLC Content Teams could meet during the period, and we gave compensation time in terms of time off on planning days for teachers who held PLC meetings outside of LEAP. LEAP occurred during the last 40 minutes of the school day.

LEAP was a start, and we maintained a committee to field issues through problem solving and new ideas. After one year of the bell schedule that the three high schools had adopted and LEAP, our staff was ready to get serious about a real structural change rather than a period tacked on the end of the day. I was tight in terms of saying that no matter what, we would have an intervention period for extra time and support during the school day. I was loose in that I asked staff to generate ideas about something that would actually work for our school. We set up a blog, and we invited community members, students, and parents to weigh in. Two staff members, Tim
MacDonald and Teresa Tyler, developed a "Straight 8 Bell Schedule" with a solid block of time every other day for an intervention period that we simply call Period 8 or 8th Period. I submitted a pilot request to the central office, Attachment 4. We applied a lot of the ideas we used for LEAP to the intervention period, and they work much
better because it is a large block of time that can be broken into pieces. Further, the teachers have a day in between 8th periods to regroup and actually plan their interventions. Period 8 is also an excellent privilege for students who are not in need of extra help. Because it is the last period of the day, they have to earn their way out of Period 8 through good grades and behavior. This privilege is reserved for 11th and 12th graders.

We have used Period 8 and the Straight 8 schedule for the past three years. We have a standing Period 8 committee that meets regularly to fine tune our administration of the period. Period 8 has evolved into a time for enrichment through assemblies, time for service clubs to meet, internship time, and time for students to work and learn on line. It is also serves at the base of our Pyramid of Interventions, Attachment 5. Our calendar for Period 8 can be viewed at the following link, and I have included a copy as Attachment 2. This calendar was inititally created by Tony Wayne, Melissa Hankins, and Erika Leer. Now, Tony maintains it with input from staff. It is not meant to be comprehensive, rather, it is intended to protect teacher PLC time within the intervention period.

http://schoolcenter.k12albemarle.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=43617&cms_mode=view

As you view our SOL testing results, you will see that for each year we have had our Pyramid of Interventions in place and Period 8, our results for the hidden enrollment groups have improved every year. I believe that because we put a functional structure in place that supports teachers and students, they are evolving the culture of the school to one that takes ownership for learning. PLC content teams meet bi-weekly for 80 minutes for face time for PLC work, and the administration supervises students for these teams in the cafeteria in a study hall.

We made several improvements over LEAP, but LEAP taught us several lessons.

1. All students are hand-scheduled into Period 8 with teachers they already have on their schedules. This way, teachers do not view this as one more supervisory period, and they can build relationships with students they already have. If a student needs help from a particular teacher, the teacher gives the student a pass in advance and keeps a copy to hold the student accountable for coming. One way to be sure a teacher is being directive in terms of support is to ask to see the teacher's pass book.

2. If a student begins to struggle in a particular class, the guidance staff will reassign the student to the teacher he needs to be with during period 8 as a starting point. This does not preclude visits to other teachers, but it is more intensive and more timely for the particular class.

3. Based on common quarterly assessments, if a student is identified as a student needing extra preparation for an SOL test, the student is assigned to SOL Academy for Period 8 during the spring semester. These are small sections that are content specific for students to receive what we call "premediation" or help before the student fails. Departments provide teachers for these assignments and schedules students in their PLC meetings. The school testing coordinator monitors student attendance, and students are required to attend.

4. If a student fails an SOL test (even after expedited retakes), the student is assigned to SOL Academy the very next fall for remediation until he passes the test. The student is not eligible for privileges during Period 8 until he passes the SOL test.

The Pyramid of Interventions is not comprehensive, but it represents systems in place. Departments, teams, and teachers personalize their interventions beyond what we can record. When you examine our Pyramid of Interventions, you will see that some other structures we put in place after 2004 - 05 included...

1. Devoting two of our guidance staff to working only with 9th graders and assigning one assistant principal to only work with this group. We have seen our 9th grade retention rate drop from 12 to 14 percent annually to 7% in 2007 - 08.

2. Revamping our peer counselor program called Patriot Partners that involves upperclassmen counselors working with 9th graders through the orientation period in the spring through the transition period in the fall. The group's name went back to being called "peer counselors" but the 9th grade focus remains.

3. This year we added our home-school attendance coordinator / social worker to the 9th grade team. This group meets bi-weekly to troubleshoot for students who are facing academic difficulties and attendance problems. We have instituted buy back programs for loss of credit the first semester, whether for grades or attendance.

In other words, we all watched the video, Through Their Eyes. We moved our school in the direction of school B. Now, we are not perfect, but we have a system rather than random approaches, and the system is working. On a side note, we cut long lunches to once or twice per month. One of the lunches is designated as a "club lunch" and clubs actually meet during that time because it is all planned out.

A Collaborative Culture:

Teachers are organized into collaborative teams by course or by subject area. Members of teams work interdependently to achieve common goals for which they are mutually
accountable. Each team has identified SMART goals that are aligned with one or more school goals. The SMART goals focus on student learning and require evidence of
improved student learning in order to be accomplished.

These statements correlate to the 8th item on our survey, Attachment 1. This item refers to our continually working together to identify policies and procedures that encourage learning in areas such as homework, grading, discipline, recognition, etc. I think the two go together because as Dr. DuFour points out, focusing on goals turns co-blabberation into collaboration.

In 2004, when we started on our path toward embedding the PLC model at AHS, I first asked department chairs to organize their departments into smaller units of teachers or content teams. For example, the Science Department was divided into four teams: Earth Science, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. We did the same for all departments, including PE, Fine Arts, Career and Technical Education, and World Languages. I know that some schools go straight to the core departments because those departments are held accountable for test scores, but I felt that the whole school would benefit from this work and that an atmosphere of collaboration would grow in all departments and impact the community. Special education teachers have one content team called the transition team, but most special education teachers work with the content teams in which they collaborate as part of our teaching model. Each content team has a leader who reports to the department chair.

Our work with PLC coincided with Albemarle County's implementation of a new Teacher Performance Appraisal model (TPA) whereby each teacher develops SMART Goals. The power of collaborative teams that focus on results is that each teacher's SMART Goal is the team's SMART Goal, and the team's goal lines right up with the school's improvement goal. For example, refer to our School Improvement Goals "snap shot view" (Attachment 6). This brief goal statement is posted on our web page and contains three goals. Each teacher creates goals in line with our school improvement goals. We follow the rule of six. If a teacher sets one goal, it must be a SMART Goal and can include no more than five strategies. If a teacher sets two goals, he can have no more than two strategies for each. Goals and strategies must add up to six.

Goal 2: All Albemarle High School students will master the essential curriculum and reach higher levels of learning as reflected through academic achievement and data.

We will continue to use the Professional Learning Community model and observation of professional practice to improve instruction, learning, intervention, and remediation to further close student achievement gaps and stretch students' higher levels of learning. See our state report card at https://p1pe.doe.virginia.gov/reportcard/.

We will continue to use E-walk data collection and reporting experiences including peer-walks. We will provide feedback to both teachers and PLC teams pertaining to their use of effective instructional strategies and activities.

Here is an example of a Teacher / PLC Team SMART Goal:

English PLC Goal: By the end of this school year, at least 80% of 12th grade English students will move up one level on each of the four criteria under Composition Control in the SOL Writing Rubric.
Strategy 1: Emphasize pre-writing planning by modeling the use of outlines/webs/graphic organizers.
Strategy 2: Teach students to peer edit and proof-read, providing methods to examine their own writings more critically.

What I find important here is that it is a collaborative special education teacher's goal for work in her PLC team and collaborative English Class. It is a leading goal with a deadline prior to the end of the year. It includes high yield strategies, and the goal is certainly attainable. Also, notice that the rubric is a common rubric used by all 12th grade English teachers.

Teachers are provided with time to collaborate during their contractual day. Teachers use their collaborative time to engage in collective inquiry regarding issues directly related to
student learning.

Please refer to the Period 8 Calendar, Attachment 2. This calendar is published to the community on our web page. On each blue day, our schedule includes periods 2, 4, 6, and 8. Our intervention period is Period 8. Period 8 is 87 minutes long. It is broken into three parts. The first 15 minutes are set aside for silent and sustained reading. This gives students time to use their minds for quiet reading, and it settles the school. The remainder of period is intervention time with two parts so that students can see more than one teacher for extra help.

You will note that nearly every day on the calendar has a PLC label, like PLC 1 or PLC 2. Each of these represents two departments that are provided time during that 8th period for collaboration time during Period 8. So on the day labeled PLC 1, Math teachers and Health and PE teachers bring their students to the cafeteria so that the teachers have unencumbered time during the school day to meet with their PLC team. Administrators and teacher assistants are assigned supervision in the cafeteria. We have seating charts, and we use the time as a "study hall." Students also have the option of going to teachers who are not meeting that day for extra help.

Initially, teachers were spending a lot of their PLC time compiling data from common assessments. As we have moved forward with technology initiatives like School Net (a data
warehouse for common assessments and PLC work), teachers use meeting times for face time to compare data, to talk about teaching practices and strategies, and to plan units and lessons, among other work. In his latest edition of Results Now, Mike Schmoker recommended 45 minutes of team time during the school day every two weeks for PLC collaboration. We are exceeding this amount. Based on the meetings I've attended, I think the teams use their time very well and would use more. At the beginning of the year, teachers establish norms, set goals, and begin the work of supporting students and improving instruction. Attachment 7 provides a rough timeline for their work this year that we developed during our school retreat time at the County's Curriculum Assessment and Instruction Institute this past summer. Throughout the year, the assistant
principals and I sit in on PLC meetings. I have even recorded a few on a small camera to bring to principal meetings as exemplars of teachers discussing common assessment practices, results, and intervention.

A Focus on Results:

Each team has identified SMART goals that are aligned with one or more school goals. The SMART goals focus on student learning and require evidence of improved student learning in order to be accomplished. Teams regard ongoing analysis of results as a critical element in the teaching and learning process. They gather evidence of student learning from a variety of sources to inform and improve their individual and collective practice as part of a process of continuous improvement.

On Attachment 1, both items three and four address this statement. You will note that departments assessed themselves in the changing and embedding stages for this work around monitoring the learning of students using targets that are established as teams with SMART goals. In terms of accountability, department chairs conduct quarterly reviews within their departments. In addition, at mid-year, department chairs and team leaders convene meetings with their assistant principals and me for a "mid-year review." The outline for mid-year review from last year is included as Attachment 8. This is our check up as opposed to the "post mortem" that is conducted in the summer time. Teachers pinpoint and talk about successes, and we look at data to identify students who need intervention through SOL academies going into the spring.

This year, I plan to add a component to review "walkthrough data" from our observations and data collection so that department chairs and content team leaders can view data relative to instructional strategy usage, levels of Bloom's Taxonomy for student work, and frequency of observation for engaging work qualities. I also plan to have each content team bring a work product that is project-based so that we can "walk the work" in terms of level of student thinking and engagement qualities. I plan to video these walks to share with the whole staff from my web page.

Each teacher receives frequent feedback regarding the success of his or her students in achieving an agreed-upon standard on valid assessments in comparison to the other
students attempting to achieve the same standard. Transparency regarding results helps teachers learn from one another.

This has become our norm. I am very proud of the openness that teachers here have developed about their students' successes and failures. Through the use of technology, all of our core departments give common assessments that give instant, if not real time reports of student achievement. Math, Science, and English all use School Net for their quarterly assessments, and the Social Studies Department uses a internet based application called Quia. These programs have quickened the turnaround on data and data analysis for the teachers so that they can share their work and talk about strategies for improvement and consistency.

This practice is enormously supportive for teachers new to the building, and it engages veteran staff to assist them in a way that is focused on results. I have observed that providing guaranteed time during the day for teachers to collaborate has enhanced sharing. Further, I have observed that teachers are much more likely to focus on results when they have an intervention period built in to the teaching day for interventions. In the past, focusing on students that needed more time and support meant lost pacing of instruction or hours before or after school for students and staff. Now, a teacher can see a student outside of the instructional time for extra help within 24 to 48 hours of the diagnosed need.

Overall, the climate of trust among the staff has increased from their work on PLC teams. I can share one specific example. After reading The Global Achievement Gap by Tony Wagner, I have become increasingly convinced that teachers can benefit greatly from observing each other's teaching work with the PLC time for feedback. This fall, I asked all staff to use our walkthrough protocol on paper to "walk" a member of their PLC team's class and provide feedback. At our November staff meeting, I asked teachers to bring their walks and to combine their "results" by table for Bloom's Taxonomy and for engaging qualities. Table leaders then went to paper charts attached to the cafeteria wall to indicate the frequency of observations of these factors with sticker dots. This was a risk for me because I was only asking teachers to try this. What if only a few dots showed up on the chart? Well, I video taped the activity and the teachers were up at the charts placing dozens of dots. The charts were full of dots (even after a few smart Alecs tried to spell my name with them). Of course I have that on video too. This activity validated their walks as aggregate data that was not collected by administrators. Further it pointed out one quality of engagement (choice) that we are not hitting. Finally, it illustrated for me the level of trust that is growing and that teachers are growing comfortable with peer observations. I told the teachers I was very proud of them. It takes a high level of professionalism to open up your class to your peers and to be receptive to feedback on your instruction, something we all take very personally.

In Larry Lezotte's book Learning for All, he stated that he believes that we know what we need to know be successful with our students. I believe that, too. I have often said to myself, "If only we knew what we know." The PLC model is bridging that gap at AHS. As our teachers continue to work collaboratively to support student learning through trust and mutual respect for oneanother's work, they will learn so much from each other that we will surpass our expectations for student learning and innovate beyond what we believe we can achieve as a school.

List awards and recognitions your school has achieved

During the 2007-08 School Year, AHS earned the Virginia Board of Education’s VIP Excellence Award, the second-tier honor in the Virginia Index of Performance (VIP) program. The Virginia Index of Performance (VIP) program awards points to schools and divisions in Virginia based on the percentage of students achieving at the advanced level on Standards of Learning assessments and progress made toward educational goals advocated by Governor Kaine and adopted by the Virginia School Board as part of its comprehensive plan for further strengthening public education in the Commonwealth. Nine high schools in Virginia were awarded the top-tiered honor, the Governor’s Award for Excellence, and only nine high schools were awarded the VIP Excellence Award. Of the more than 300 public high schools in Virginia, this places AHS in a select grouping of 18 high schools recognized by Virginia for meeting all state and federal accountability benchmarks for at least two consecutive years and having made significant progress toward goals for increased student achievement and expanded educational opportunity set by Governor Kaine and the Board of Education. These awards have not been announced for the current year as of December.

Attachments

PLC TOOLS & RESOURCES

Download sample agendas and activities, choose from a variety of helpful links,
and more.

PLC LOCATOR

Find and compare statistics with other PLC schools.