Monroe Elementary School

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

Our PLC Journey began in August 2014 in the living room of our principal's home. It was a pre-school year teacher meeting where a "fist of five" consensus deemed 100% of us were on board and would like to start the PLC journey so that we could better serve our students and their learning. Having attended a three day PLC at Work Institute in Kalamazoo in August 2014, our principal relied on the teachings and strategies from this conference to begin the work of building a collaborative culture and laying a solid foundation and committment. We spent our first year building our shared knowledge of PLC work, creating expectations and structures in our daily/weekly schedules for collaboration, and establishing our 4 pillars. Weekly staff meetings immediately changed to our own PD of learning how to do authentic PLC work with a deep commitment to the process and to improve student learning. Teachers would often joke "Mrs. Wilson only brought us two articles to read this week!" By mid-year we had established our 4 pillars. The pillars were more than a document for us – they were the heart and soul of our promise to our students.

During year one, we turned an open room in our school into a PLC room. It is a common place, rich in professional resources and PLC protocols, where each PLC team has a designated work space and a collaboration whiteboard for their team. This room has become a sacred place honoring the most important work we do for our students. Every Wednesday after school, all teachers gather here and we have our own PLC development, collaborative time for PLC teams to work in a common space and to support each other, and discuss books/articles we are studying. Throughout the week during their dedicated PLC time or common planning time, you will find one or several PLC teams engaging in the PLC work of answering one of the the 4 critical questions.

Once we had our pillars in place we studied Marzano’s research on Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum (What do we want our students to know and be able to do?). We decided together our second year to tackle our ELA standards by first unwrapping each one in our grade level teams, then putting them through Reeve’s 3-part test of Readiness, Leverage, and Endurance to prioritize. We used a protocol to analyze the vertical progression and look for gaps, and then finally identified the most Essential Learnings for each grade. With a Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum for ELA, our PLC teams spent the remaining part of the year writing Common Formative Assessments (CFAs) (How will we know if they have learned it?) and developing intervention/enrichment systems to respond to the evidence of student learning. (What will we do if they have not learned it? What will we do if they already know it?) The remainder of year two and beginning year three we devoted our work to the full PLC process in ELA with a Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum, development of Common Formative Assessments, and analysis of student learning with intervention and enrichment systems. In order to build our capacity for writing quality assessments, a team from our school attended Deisgn In Five, a Soultion Tree assessment workshop with Nicole Vagle. This school team designed professional development and offered coaching and support for all our PLC teams to share the knowledge school-wide. We believed we needed to just "fly the plane" even if it crashed. We learned from our mistakes and grew a lot in the process - unit by unit. In the second half of the year three, our PLC teams began unwrapping our math standards and followed the same protocol in ELA to create our Guaranteed and Viable curriculum in Math.

This fourth year, 2017-2018, we completed our Math Essential Learnings. We now continue to build our shared knowledge of PLC work and Research-based Best Practices of Instruction, and we are applying the full PLC cycle to ensure learning of all with our ELA and math curriculum – answering the four driving questions of PLC work. Also, this year, our principal is leading the district’s four elementary schools in developing a district-wide Guaranteed in Viable Curriculum in ELA with a plan to do the same process with math, science and social studies.

In these four years, PLC work has become the culture of our school. It is evident in our belief that all of our students will learn at high levels. Our teams work collaboratively on a consistent and frequent basis to evaluate the learning of every individual student in that grade and then identify a plan to assist and support those that need more time and instruction, as well as move forward those students that need enrichment. The commitment to our own professional learning is ongoing and a constant in our school as we continue to develop deep implementation of PLC work and improve our instructional and assessment practices collectively.

Many new school programs don't make it past year three. In this fourth year, our commitment and enthusiasm for PLCs continues to grow stronger. It is no longer an initiative, it is our culture and the way we do our work.

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

Each PLC team meets at least twice a week to look at student learning by evaluating common formative assessment results, gaps in prerequisite skills necessary for mastery of an Essential Learning Target, or a need to discuss/research effective instructional practices to improve the results we are getting. The PLC team will then develop an intervention/enrichment plan, often called WIN (What I Need) plan to either reteach, extend, or enrich their collective group of students toward mastery of the Essential Learning. We use a loose-tight approach. While we have a tight agreement that all teachers keep record of mastery toward the Essential Learnings, the team members have the freedom to create record keeping documents that best suit their need/style. The majority of our teachers use a simple chart with student names in boxes and the Essential Learning written at the top. A green, yellow, and red dot shows progress toward mastery in the student box. Once interventions have been executed a Form B CFA is given to reassess mastery.

Essential Learning Targets from each unit are paced throughout the unit as determined by that PLC team. Then CFAs are developed and given by all team members on the same day when mastery of a particular target is expected during the unit. The team will develop their immediate intervention/enrichment plan to address that target. This process is ongoing throughout the unit with CFA checks typically on a 5-10 day cycle.

PLC teams determine with each CFA how best to execute an intervention/enrichment plan by looking at each teacher’s results, discussing likely misconceptions during the learning process, and based on how many students did not yet master the target and from which classroom. These interventions and student groupings are very fluid based on student need and performance. 

Our PLCs teams monitor reading levels of students by administering a DRA or IRI reading inventory three times a year for all students. Students not reading on grade level, move into Tier 2 of support through our PLC work. Teachers use a current running record to diagnose the deficit(s) for each struggling reader. The take this information to their PLC team and collective evaluate the intervention needs of all the students and plan the best course of action for intervention. Interventions may include learning of prerequisite skills or small group instruction in a guided reading group format that strategically teaches the area of deficit for each learner. Students in this tier of support are progress monitored every 10 days through either mastery tests or running records. (There is a visual flow chart of this process under the resources tab.)

We also use the NWEA assessment three times a year in math and reading to monitor our students’ growth and achievement. PLC teams look collectively at grade level reports to identify the skills students need to fill gaps in learning. We also use this assessment tool to monitor achievement gaps of our subgroups – specifically economically disadvantaged and bottom 20%.

State assessment data comes in once a year, usually in the summer. We look at this data with all PLC teams together and set goals and plans for our own learning and identify schoolwide achievement needs and school improvement action plans.

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

In our four years of PLC implementation, our intervention systems have grown and evolved dramatically. The first year, we identified a set WIN (What I Need) time for every team, every day in their daily schedule. It was a set block of time that we used when we needed to execute an intervention plan in response to a team’s CFA. Once we developed our Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum in math as well as ELA we realized there would be some weeks we needed time for ELA WIN and math WIN. We scheduled two blocks, a block for ELA intervention/enrichment and a block for math intervention/enrichment. We were also struggling to coordinate with a district RtI (Response to Intervention) system that was separate from the PLC team and identified students for RtI based on NWEA assessment results instead of mastery of the Guaranteed and Viable Curriculum. In year three of implementation we did a staff book study of Best Practices at Tier 1 Daily Differentiation for Effective Instruction by Gregory, Kaufeldt, and Mattos. This book validated our beliefs about PLCs and student learning and challenged us to advocate for best practices in how we have traditionally used Response to Intervention (RtI) in our school. A small team from our school attended a PD session through our local education agency on Multi-Tiered Support Systems (MTSS). This training was based on the book Simplifying Response to Intervention: Four Essential Guiding Principles by Buffum, Mattos, and Weber. This year we have applied our learning from these two books to bring together our PLC work and a previously disjointed RtI system.

Providing students with additional time and support, regardless of which Tier they may be identified on, is now a fluid part of our daily teaching and learning. Instead of two scheduled intervention/enrichment blocks, our PLC teams now respond with intervention/enrichment plans as the need arises through constant monitoring of student learning by each PLC team. This year, we added at part time Literacy Coach that works with PLC teams to help them develop their skill in diagnosing deficits and building intervention and monitoring plans for the students. The Literacy is available to meet with all PLC teams to assist them in determining effective intervention plans.

To provide the time for WIN (Intervention/Extension) each PLC set up their schedule so their core subjects are taught at the same time of day. Our classrooms are self-contained, and teachers teach all subjects. Instruction is delivered in a Daily 5 or workshop model with short mini-lessons for the whole group followed by students having choices of authentic collaborative or independent work. It is during Daily 5 and workshop time that our PLCs execute their interventions and extensions in their classrooms. Students no longer lose core instruction by being pulled out for remediation based on a school schedule. Instead each PLC team takes collective responsibility to ensure all students learn the Essential Learning targets, and when the students do not show this mastery, the team works together to discuss their theories about individual student learning, develop a plan of intervention with targeted instruction by the team, and execute their plan right away. No longer do we send our students to someone else of out of our classrooms to get support. We have two Title 1 instructional aides that previously did the pull-out RtI. This year these aides work with all our PLC teams and come into the classrooms during the intervention times as additional support toward mastery of our Essential Learnings. Our Speech and Language Pathologist pushes in her speech services right into the classroom. She has embraced our Essential Learnings and reinforces these targets with her speech students during her speech work with them. Our special education teacher uses our Essential Learnings in his work with students in the Resource Room. As we look to the future, we want to develop opportunity to grow this support with more classroom push-in services.

A MTSS leadership team in school provides additional support to PLC teams when they see a student regularly and consistently falls short of meeting the Essential Learning targets.

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

When we first began this journey, we knew we had a lot to learn and establish regular, frequent, and dedicated collaboration time. Each team had at least two times a week that their specials (for prep time release) were at the same time for the grade level. We all agreed that we would choose one of those weekly common preps (40 minutes) and use it for dedicated PLC work within our teams.

We then looked for creative ways to find more time to collaborate. Our school had been having weekly PBIS (Positive Behavior Intervention & Supports) with our students that last about 40 minutes on Friday mornings. We decided that half of the teachers would stay with the children and teach lessons on positive behaviors at these assemblies, while the other half would spend another 40 minutes on dedicated PLC work. We alternate who stays with the children at assemblies and who is released for PLC work. A third way we find time to collaborate is through a leadership buddy partnership. An upper grade class and a lower grade class partner up once a week for a leadership lesson or for the big buddies to read to our little buddies. Each week either the upper grade teachers or lower grade teachers take on both classes for this 40 minute session releasing their partner to meet with their PLC team. Using these three opportunities, we found at least 80 minutes a week that every team could collaborate as a PLC that is in addition to any district identified release time for professional development.  

Having the time established we had to build shared knowledge of intentional, purposeful, dedicated PLC work. We have a one hour staff meeting every week. All school information was handled in memos, announcements, and email in order to preserve the hour for building shared knowledge of PLC work. Our principal, together with our PLC school leadership team, planned and led this learning. In our PLC room, we read countless articles, had book studies, and watched and dialogued about videos. Through this learning, we developed a common pedagogy about student learning and best practices. We worked together on how to become a high performing PLC in a common space, side by side, supporting each other when the journey got fuzzy. We developed into a community of learners with a common goal and a passion for doing right by our students. Through our learning and work, we have created or collected meaningful protocols, agreements on loose/tight expectations, and a relentless drive to make a difference in the learning of all our students.

PLC teams are structured by grade level. We have either two or three sections in each grade at our school. At-Risk kindergarten aides support kindergarten students and plan with our kindergarten PLC. Our two Title I aides support students in grades 1-5, and will join in their PLCs to plan when they are needed to assist in intervention plans. Our Literacy Coach works with all PLC teams to plan specific intervention plans for our most struggling readers.

 Another process we embraced to improve student learning and support a collaborative culture is Instructional Rounds. We visit each other’s classrooms as a group, to look at student learning and best practice instructional strategies. After each visit we debrief about our observations of learning and best practices in an effort to improve our own classroom practices. This process has reinforced and strengthened the initiatives that are important to us, especially our Professional Learning Communities. Going on rounds has created and nurtured a collective trust in each other, encouraged us to take risks, and taught us that it’s ok to fail. When we fail together, we have a great opportunity to learn and grow as a team.

Additional Achievement Data

This first chart comes from our state assessment data (MSTEP). It is a growth snapshot that allows us the see how many students are growing at an average rate and above average rate. It positively shows the impact of our PLC work as there is a trend of exceeding average growth and above average growth as compared to the county, district and state . We contribute this to an "all means all" commitment to ensuring all students learn with intervention and enrichment.

State Assessment Data - Student Growth Snapshot

 

Student Growth Snapshot by MI School Data - All Grades Combined Data (3rd-5th)
Based on MSTEP - State Assessement 2015-2017
  2015-2016 ELA 2016-2017 ELA 2015-2016 Math 2016-2017 Math
  % of students above average growth % of students above average or average growth % of students above average growth % of students above average or average growth % of students above average growth % of students above average or average growth % of students above average growth % of students above average or average growth
State 29.2% 69.0% 29.4% 69.4% 29.3% 69.1% 29.4% 69.4%
County 27.2% 66.2% 28.4% 68.1% 26.6% 65.6% 28.2% 67.2%
District  30.5% 72.3% 27.5% 68.1% 26.9% 68.0% 23.3% 62.2%
Monroe  37.4% 72.2% 29.2% 67.5% 30.8% 71.0% 25.0% 73.3%

 

One of our PLC goals is to increase the number of students that are reading at or above grade level as measured by our local assessments of DRA 2 and IRI.

While this next data chart is internal and not comparative, it is important to us as it is one of our PLC goals for the important to us as it is one of our PLC goals for the 4 years of implementation and it shows steady growth and improvement. Each year our individual PLC teams, look at current reading achievement scores and set a SMART goal for the upcomng school year. We look forward to continued growth in future years.

         
Percentage of Monroe students reading at or above grade level by end of the year   PLC Goals for June 2017 2018
Grade 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17   Y5 80% 95%
Y5       94%   K 80% 80%
K 87% 86% 78% 78%   1 65% 65%
1 57% 67% 58% 60%   2 60% 65%
2 51% 59% 71% 59%   3 70% 80%
3 68% 65% 66% 83%   4 70% 75%
4 63% 64% 88% 73%   5 72% 75%
5 66% 77% 70% 72%   ALL 70% 75%
ALL 65% 70% 72% 72%        

 

The intention of our interventions is to ensure ALL students are learning. While this next data set is also internal data and not comparative to district or state, it is important to us as it lets us compare ALL student performance with our 2 subgroups most at-risk – Economically Disadvantaged (ED) and Bottom 30%. Not only do we see a trend of growth from 15-16 to 16-17, we see that our at-risk subgroups are performing as well as our ‘ALL students' group in most cases. Below the chart, you will see our PLC NWEA RIT growth goals in Reading.

Grade  Percentage of Students meeting NWEA RIT target in reading
    15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20
Y5 All   94      
Y5 ED   100      
Y5 Bottom 30   100      
* ED - Economicall Disadvantaged  
K All 98 82      
K ED 98 77      
K Bottom 30 100 90      
             
1 All 60 82      
1 ED 54 85      
1 Bottom 30 56 75      
             
2 All 86 71      
2 ED 81 68      
2 Bottom 30 76 74      
             
3 All 73 81      
3 ED 74 83      
3 Bottom 30 78 74      
             
4 All 61 65      
4 ED 67 68      
4 Bottom 30 55 70      
             
5 All 70 86      
5 ED 68 83      
5 Bottom 30 67 86      
             
ALL All 70 79      
ALL ED 68 78      
ALL Bottom 30 67 79      

PLC Reading Growth Goals
1. 80% of our students will achieve their NWEA RIT Growth goal in reading.
2. 80% of our ED (Economically Disadvantaged)students will achieve their NWEA RIT Growth goal in reading.
3. 80% of our Bottom 30% students will achieve their NWEA RIT Growth goal in reading.

 

State Proficiency Achievement Data on MSTEP

The following data has been the most inconsistent since we began our PLC Journey. We see evidences of improvements as well as decline or inconsistencies. This has been a frustration for us and leads us to a place of questioning of ourselves and our work. Through these disappointments, we come together to renew our unbridled commitment to growth through our belief the PLC process followed by additional development in instructional best practices. Recent steps we have taken to improve assessment scores for 17-18 included a summer book study of HEART! by Timothy Kanold. We selected this book to keep morale high and to remind ourselves always that our students are our purpose and prize. Throughout the 17-18 year, we had another book study on Solving for Why which teaches us to deeply peel back the onion when a student is not learning and develop a theory of why. This book has helped us add the question "Why are our students not learning?" before we answer the question "What we will do if they are not learning?". After reading this book, we have applied the same theory of diagnosing "why" a student isn't meeting reading expectations with internal training to refresh all teachers on how we can use running records to first diagnose the deficit so that we can develop the proper intervention and monitoring cycle for each student. We believe part of our inconsistency is due to changes in the assessment each year as well as our own implementation dip with the depth of our PLC implementation. Our student growth snapshot shows a trend of solid growth. We believe in this process! Our collaborative culture and strong commitment to PLCs, together with the growth snapshot of MSTEP, we expect more growth in the proficiency data in future years. A couple weeks ago, MDE released Michigan's new Accountability Index for 16-17 MSTEP. It is a combined summary score between 0 and 100 of proficiency progress and growth progress for all subject areas tested. It incorporates all grade levels tested with all subgroups represented. Currently this data is embargoed. We will post it as soon as it is released to the public. Preliminary results gave us the opportunity to celebrate that our school outperformed the county and the state.  We look forward to the 17-18 MSTEP scores and continuing to grow on this journey and show great gains in student achievement.

State Proficiency Achievement Data
State Accountability:MSTEP
Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Proficiency
    2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
Grade SUBJECT School State School State School State
3rd English 30% 50.00% 35.60% 46.00% 42.00% 44.10%
3rd Mathematics 49.06% 48.80% 35.90% 45.20% 47.10% 46.80%
4th  English 32.00% 46.60% 29.10% 46.30% 29.30% 44.20%
4th  Mathematics 29.41% 41.40% 31.60% 44.00% 27.90% 42.00%
4th  Science 7.84% 12.40% 3.50% 14.70% 15.00% 14.60%
5th  English 50% 48.70% 47.30% 50.60% 42.40% 51.10%
5th  Mathematics 30.77% 33.40% 39.30% 33.80% 25.00% 35.00%
5th  Social Studies 3.85% 22.20% 12.70% 18.90% 11.50% 21.60%

* 2014-2015 was the first year of MSTEP testing. Prior to 2014, data is not comparative.

 

 

 

 

2016 Presented to MDE (Michigan Department of Education) State School Improvement Conference on Instructional Rounds

2015 Wayne County Presentation to Elementary Principals on Instructional Rounds

2013-2018 Welcomed school visits by approximately 10 areas school districts to observe Instructional Rounds in our school

2016 Wayne County Presentation to Elementary Principals on 21st Century Learning Environments

2016-2018 Welcomed school visits by approximately 3 areas school districts to observe 21st Century learning environments

2016 Wayne County Presentation to PBIS school teams of student-centered positive classroom and student management at Tiers 1, 2 and 3.

Top