PLC Blog

Our State Adopted the Common Core Standards—Now What?

Posted on January 25, 2012

By Chris Jakicic, PLC at Work™ author and associate
Follow Chris on Twitter: @cjakicic

Many schools and districts that have been implementing the PLC process are now wondering how to respond to the new Common Core Standards that their states have adopted. They’ve worked hard to respond to the four critical questions teams ask themselves: What do students need to know and do? How will we know if they have learned? What will we do if they didn’t learn? What will we do for those who already proficient?  They’ve developed common formative assessments and intervention opportunities based on their current state standards. They wonder how the Common Core will affect their work and whether they need to start from the beginning to redo the products they’ve created.

As we’ve worked with schools/districts making this transition, there are some common questions/issues we’ve encountered. In the PLC model, teams create a list of essential outcomes which address the most important learning targets that the team guarantees all students will know at the end of the year, and then establishes the skills they will teach, unit by unit. With the advent of Common Core standards, the question arises as to whether this process should continue. Should teachers merely be given a copy of the Common Core Standards for their grade level and then be directed to teach those standards, or should they engage in analysis of and dialogue about the standards?

Our experience has been that teams that engage in collaborative discussions regarding new standards (whether they are state standards or Common Core standards) build a shared understanding regarding the meaning of the standards, the priorities assigned to each standard, the common pacing required for teaching each standard, ways to assess student mastery, and the focus of intervention when students struggle. This team dialogue is essential to offering students a guaranteed implemented curriculum that assures students will move to the next course or grade level having had access to the same knowledge and skills. Teachers who study the standards in isolation are unable to provide students with this guaranteed curriculum.

Another frequent question we encounter deals with the assessment of the Common Core standards. Both of the consortia designing assessments (PARCC and Smarter Balanced) have agreed that multiple choice questions cannot be the only type used for these more rigorous standards.  In a PLC, collaborative teams ask themselves question two “How do we know whether students have learned our essential outcomes?”  Teams who are answering this question for the new Common Core Standards are finding that the learning targets they are assessing expect higher cognitive demand in many cases than their current learning targets. These teams are learning how to create better “constructed response questions.” They recognize that they must present students with a novel situation in the assessment and one or more rich questions that call upon students to provide a clear explanation for the answer.  They are hunting for pieces of text with higher complexity for both instruction and assessment. Assessment experts agree that teachers who work in collaborative teams are more successful in designing high-quality formative assessments that will provide them the information they need to know what to do next.

So, where should we start? We recommend that teams get started on the process now so that they are learning more about what they will need to do as a result. Beginning steps include:

1. Begin with a review of the structure of the new standards—the idea of College and Career Readiness is an important thread beginning even in kindergarten.  Read one standard all the way through from Kindergarten to 12^th grade to understand how they build on each other.
2. Become familiar with the Appendices for each set of standards. There are hidden gems in each one: Appendix A in ELA has some important vocabulary and discussion about text complexity and the structure of the standards, Appendix B in ELA provides samples pieces of text and ideas for assessment, Appendix C in ELA provides samples of student writing and scoring ideas which can lead to rubrics, and Appendix A in Math explains how the standards are structured for each grade level and the two different tracks for high school math.
3. Identify the power or essential standards for your course or grade level.  If you are an elementary school, choose one area (math or ELA) to begin with. Get good at the process, and the next subject will be much easier. Unwrap these standards into their learning targets. Don’t rush this step: getting clarity about the meaning of these standards will take some time. Talk about what your expectations for proficiency will be and what instructional strategies will be most effective to get students there.  Look at the grade level before and after yours to assure your expectations are vertically aligned.
4. Begin writing short common formative assessments for a small number of learning targets (1 to 3 maximum). Become confident writers of constructed response questions.  Examine the student responses collaboratively to make sure you are all applying the rubric the same way.

Professional Learning Communities understand that the “L” in the title refers to both student and adult learning.  They believe that by working together to learn how to most effectively use these new standards, the ultimate products of their work will be better as a result.  This work will take time but each meeting brings new learning to the group. It is better to work carefully and purposely than to rush to “check off” completed tasks. Because you are a PLC, the pay off will be worth it!

What Teachers Need, Part 2

Posted on January 18, 2012

By Bob Eaker and Janel Keating, PLC at Work™ authors and associates

This post is a continuation from last week’s post, What Teachers Need, Part 1.

Teachers need to work in collaborative teams with their colleagues. Yet, traditionally teachers have worked in isolation. Never before in the history of American public education have teachers been asked—in fact, directed—to ensure higher learning of all students.  While the goal of ensuring that all students learn at high levels is certainly laudable, achieving this goal is too complex and difficult for even the best teachers to successfully achieve by working in isolation.

We would propose that there is no evidence that having teachers work in isolation is an effective way to enhance teacher success. In fact, when teachers work in isolation, they are essentially being set up for failure!  There are numerous studies over the past three decades that support the efficacy of collaborative teaming.  Interestingly, in spite of the overwhelming evidence documenting the power of collaborative teams, most teachers in the United States are still asked to do an increasingly complex and difficult job by themselves.  Simply put, teachers need to be part of a collaborative team that works interdependently to achieve common goals, for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.  Part of the power of collaborative teaming lies in the fact it shifts the conversations and work of teachers to a focus on “our kids” versus a focus on “my kids”.

The Principal/Team Link

We also know that merely being assigned to a collaborative team will not, in and of itself, improve teacher performance.  It’s what teams do that matters!  This fact reinforces the importance of schools being led by highly effective principals.  Without appropriate and highly effective direction from principals, collaborative teams are likely to lack purpose and focus.  And, most important, weak teams will lack any support or direction for improvement.

At the most basic level, highly effective principals ensure that teams are directed—and supported—in activities and tasks related to developing team norms, identifying and clarifying standards that are “essential” for every student to learn, monitoring the learning of each student on a frequent and timely basis through the collaborative development and use of common formative assessments, and collaboratively analyzing the results of formative assessments to make informed decisions regarding additional time, support and enrichment for students, as well as, to reflect on the effectiveness of their own instructional strategies.

Teams of teachers, like students, learn at different rates, and in different ways.  We believe it is the responsibility of the building principal to work closely with each team and assist them in not only doing the right work, but continually doing it more effectively!  When an effective principal enhances the effectiveness of every team within the building, the effectiveness of individual teachers is enhanced significantly.

Reciprocal Accountability

Of course, teachers need more than an effective principal, structure and direction, and the support of a collaborative team.  They need resources and support—what Richard Elmore (2006) refers to as “reciprocal accountability”.  At its most basic level this means that for every increment of performance we expect of others, we have an equal responsibility to provide them with the capacity to meet that expectation.  Essentially, this means that teachers need to know “why” they are being asked engage in specific work, and how this particular work fits the bigger picture.  In other words, teachers need to understand the “context” of their work.  Along with the “why”, teachers need a clear understanding of exactly “what” it is they are being asked to do.  Ambiguity leads to frustration, and frustration has a negative impact on quality.  Teachers need to know the time-frame or “when” the work is to be done, along with “how” it is to be done—how to proceed.  Teachers also benefit from clear standards of quality.  That is, what would the completed task or product should look like—the criteria by which the quality of the work will be assessed. And, of course, often need resources such as training, materials, suggestions, and most important, high quality examples. (An excellent discussion of questions that should be addressed when people are asked to engage in new work is provided in DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and Many (2010) Learning by Doing, 2nd ed.)

Touching the Emotions

Daniel Goleman (2002) reminds us that to be effective, ultimately leadership must touch the emotions.  Since the early 1950’s researchers of human motivation have emphasized the importance of leaders paying attention to the psychological and emotional needs of those within the organization.  And, although there is virtually unanimous agreement about the importance of public appreciation, praise, recognition, and a genuine high regard for the work of others, today’s teachers are expected to successfully achieve almost impossible and extremely complex goals, under very difficult circumstances, with declining resources, all within an atmosphere in which they are constantly blamed, not only for the short comings of schools, but in some cases for the poor economy, and by some people for the ills of society in general.  In short, what teachers need is nothing short of what all humans need—genuine respect and appreciation for the critically important work they do.

What About Evaluation and Feedback?

Rather than engage in a discussion of the characteristics of effective evaluation programs, suffice to say that teachers should be evaluated, and they should receive feedback regarding their performance—especially if the feedback is in the form of high quality narratives based on multiple sources of data, collected over an extended period of time, and connected directly to the work and goals of their team.  And importantly, since every classroom situation is unique, narrative feedback should detail the “context” in which the data were collected and conclusions were reached.  In other words, we believe that teaching and learning is far too complex to be characterized by a single number (for example, a 1,2,3,4 or 5) that summarizes the quality of teacher performance.

Regardless of the form any particular teacher evaluation process takes, absent an effective principal, organization and direction that supports their work, the benefits of a collaborative team focusing on the right things, and an appreciation for the work they are doing, teacher evaluation, in and of itself, will make little difference in teacher effectiveness.  There is little, if any, evidence that districts, schools, and teachers can be evaluated into excellence.

On the other hand, there is a role for teacher evaluation—especially, if the evaluation and feedback is part of a broader process of providing teachers and teams with useful feedback, and if the process is directly linked to the goals and work of teacher teams! In short, we believe teacher observation, evaluation, and feedback should be one “piece” of a broader culture that provides teachers with the tools and support they need.  We believe principals should be in classrooms and meeting with teams so often that it is regarded as “just the way we do things around here”, rather than an evaluation observation or “walk through” event.  If we really mean it—and this is a huge “if”—when we say we want to improve teacher performance we should ensure that teachers are afforded the leadership, organization, direction, and support that have been shown to help more kids learn more.  In short, we would ensure that each teacher has the benefit of working in a collaborative school culture reflective of the concepts and practices of a high performing professional learning community!

References

Elmore, R. (2006).  School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (2008).  Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution-Tree.

DuFour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010).  Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2^nd ed.).  Bloomington, IN: Solution-Tree Press.

Fullen, M. (2007).  The new meaning of educational change (4^th ed.).  New York: Teachers College Press.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002).  Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

What Teachers Need, Part 1

Posted on January 11, 2012

By Bob Eaker and Janel Keating, PLC at Work™ authors and associates

Increasingly, states are adopting more intensive and complex teacher evaluation systems.  While it is difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy the motivation behind these initiatives, most proponents of more stringent evaluation of teachers have proclaimed that a primary purpose is simply to “help teachers improve”.

One can hardly argue with the idea that it is a good thing to improve teacher effectiveness, and that school districts should evaluate teachers and provide them with useful feedback.  On the other hand, the very fact that many, if not most, teachers are routinely denied the very conditions that would, in fact, enhance their effectiveness, makes the call for teacher evaluation plans for the purpose of “helping teachers improve” seem disingenuous at best.  In fact, some suspect that the current fascination with evaluating teachers is perhaps simply one piece of a larger political agenda that includes initiatives such as merit pay, charter schools, vouchers that would direct public funds to private schools, and the significant reduction of the power of teacher unions.

Whatever the motivation for the current interest in the more stringent evaluation of teachers, surely we can all agree that helping teachers get better is a worthy goal—especially if “getting better” means helping more kids learn more, as well as being a positive influence in the lives of students.  After all, making a difference in kids’ lives is the primary reason most teachers entered the profession.  (Rarely do we hear a teacher say something to the effect, “It just hit me one day.  I was walking across campus my junior year of college, and I suddenly realized I really wanted to be a teacher so I could raise test scores!”

What Do Teachers Really Need?

What if we really mean it when we say we want to help teachers get better?  What would we actually do?  What do teachers really need in order to enhance their classroom effectiveness?  We think a review of the research literature, along with a good dose of common sense, can provide us with a number of things that, collectively, would significantly increase teacher effectiveness.

A Shift in School Culture

There is little evidence that a structural change such as the way teachers are evaluated will, in and of itself, dramatically affect student achievement since structural change that is not linked to cultural change is inadequate.  Dufour, DuFour & Eaker (2008) point out that, “Even a cursory review of the literature on the change process indicates that meaningful substantive, sustainable improvement can occur in an organization only if those improvements become anchored in the culture of the organization: the assumptions, beliefs, values, expectations, and habits that constitute the norm for that organization.” (p.90)   Michael Fullen (2007) echoes the need for a focus on school culture if substantive change is to occur.  He writes, “Restructuring (which can be done by fiat) occurs time and time again whereas reculturing (how teacher come to question and change their beliefs and habits) is what is needed.” (p. 25)

So what kind of cultural shifts in schools do teachers need?  First, teachers need to work in a culture that has shifted from a primary focus on teaching to an intense, passionate and persistent focus on learning. Second, teachers need to be part of a school culture that has shifted from a culture of teacher isolation in which teachers are expected to work primarily by themselves, to a culture of teacher collaboration in which every teacher is part of a high performing collaborative team.  And third, teachers need a school culture that has shifted from intentions to one that focuses on results—the learning of each student, student by student, skill by skill.  In other words, teachers need the benefit of working in a school and district culture reflective of a professional learning community!

The Principal Principle

Think of what we know about schools and how they work—or don’t work.  Wouldn’t most teachers say they desperately need an effective principal who can motivate and inspire them, as well as organize and lead in the development of a collaborative school culture that focuses passionately and intently on improving student learning?  Since the early 1980’s there has been clear and consistent research highlighting the critical role the building principal plays in school effectiveness. In fact, it is rare to find a highly effective school that is led by a weak and ineffective principal. Simply put, without an effective principal the various elements of effective schooling simply cannot be brought together, maintained, and supported. And, without effective principals teachers are left to work in a culture that lacks direction and focus.  If we accept the assertion that the success of students is directly linked to highly effective teachers, it isn’t a leap to see that teacher effectiveness is directly and significantly influenced by a highly effective principal.

And, principals are faced with increasing demands.  Not only must they ensure high levels of student learning for all students, many are now required to make numerous teacher evaluation observations coupled with post-observation conferences (often with as little as three days training) while continuing to deal with the day to day complexities associated with being a building principal.  While the demands placed on principals have increased significantly, nothing has been removed from their plate—except resources!

Organization and Decision-Making Aligned To Support Student Learning

In addition to effective principals, teachers need an organizational leadership that provides clear and consistent direction.  This doesn’t mean teachers need to be mico-managed.  Just the opposite is true!  Obviously, teachers benefit from autonomy and should be encouraged to experiment, but within a framework that provides a context for their work—that of ensuring student learning.  Teachers need to clearly understand where, how and why things fit.  In other words, they need a clear understanding of a conceptual framework that “connects the dots”.  Here’s just one example of “connecting the dots”.  Do principals need to observe teachers?  Of course, but the effectiveness of classroom observations for both the principal and teacher is greatly enhanced when the focus of the observation is linked to the work and goals of the teacher’s team.  Connecting classroom observations directly to the work and goals of the teacher’s team provides principals with a greater understanding of the teacher’s focus and a broader context for what is being observed.

Do teachers benefit from bottom-up leadership, empowerment, autonomy, and experimentation?  The answer is clearly “yes”! But, one of the great ironies is this—the quality of “bottom-up” leadership, ownership and empowerment depends on the quality of “top-down” organization, direction, and leadership.

Check back next week for part 2, where the authors will dig deeper into the benefits of teacher collaboration in a PLC.

References

Elmore, R. (2006).  School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (2008).  Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution-Tree.

DuFour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010).  Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2^nd ed.).  Bloomington, IN: Solution-Tree Press.

Fullen, M. (2007).  The new meaning of educational change (4^th ed.).  New York: Teachers College Press.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002).  Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Creating Buy-In for PLCs

Posted on January 4, 2012

By Lillie G. Jessie, PLC at Work™ associate

It is not unusual to have persons excited about the Professional Learning Community concept but express concern that others will not “Buy-in.” Educators not buying into research-based strategies are pervasive according to Dr. John Hattie (2009). He says, “We have a rich research base…but rarely is it used.”  Ronald Ferguson, (2010) calls it an “Implementation problem.” When buy-in does not occur many make the mistake of waiting for it to arrive before taking action.  Many express concern that a lack of participation by all staff members will result in an even more toxic culture than the existing one.  Principals sometimes say, “My staff is not ready for this yet.”  The research shows that some may never be ready.

Dr. Rick DuFour recognized the challenge of creating a change culture as early as 1998.  He reminded us of the need to embrace the “soft” and “touchy” side of leadership if we were serious about sustainability of high performance.  He and other researchers warned us of the mistake we make when we “overlook the importance of appealing to basic needs of achievement, belonging, and significance.”

These observations were confirmed in my school’s PLC journey.  For me there was always an unwritten ‘P’ in PLC.  That ‘P’ represented “People.”  Presenters of new ideas have to be able to change the hearts and minds of people. One slide presentation to a staff will not suffice. I define leadership as, “The ability to get people to do what they would not normally do.” This requires an enormous amount of self-reflection and analysis of how other people think and “feel.”  I am astonished at both the large size and emotional responses of audiences to my celebration of learning sessions. Both confirmed the need for my personal, daily mantra, which continues to be, People are not moved by facts; they are moved by emotions!

The “Why” of Lack of Buy-in

1. Lack of collective self-efficacy: Lack of belief that the students can achieve any higher than they have already demonstrated; therefore, there is no need to change current practices (Howard, 2007). Some honestly think they and the students are doing the “best that they of capable of doing.” This is another paper in itself.
2. Lack of visionary, mission-based leadership: Lack of urgency occurs when teachers believe that the principal tepidly supports the initiative and will not follow up.
3. Lack of Recognition for short-term wins, replaced with annual public humiliation (We’ve gotta do better or else!) when standards are not met.
4. Lack of a visionary guiding coalition
5. Too many conflicting initiatives.

Research-Based Solutions That Worked for Me

1. Develop an efficacious culture: Let your staff see successful achievements of students and teachers similar to their demographics (site visits, PLC institutes, videos, book sharing or outside presenters).
2. Develop and “market” a personal vision that is outrageously contagious! Buyers have to be sold on an idea, so sell it!
3. Connect short-term wins to your mission and vision. Nothing happens until people are having fun! Celebrate students and staff publicly and frequently (Jessie, 2011).
4. Select and give authorship to a coalition that shares the vision. Too many “Fundamentalists” (Muhammad, 2009) or “No-No Birds” (Kotter, 2008) will drive your coalition bus into a ditch. Doug Reeves’ admonition “Action precedes belief,” works! If the destination is fun few will want to be left at the station.
5. My suggested annual monitoring framework
   1. Keep what works
   2. Tweak what needs modification
   3. Seek new strategies when something does not work
   4. Delete what is not working (Reeves, 2009)

Resources

DuFour, R. (1998). You won’t find this on any checklist. Journal of Staff Development , 19 (2), 1-2.

Ferguson, R. F. (2010). Toward excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London and New York, England & NY: Routeledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Howard, J. (2007, November). Whose children are these? Retrieved October 9, 2011, from http://www.efficacy.org/Resources/TheEIPointofView/tabid/233/ctl/ArticleView/mid/678/articleId/82/Whose-Children-Are-These.aspx

Jessie, L. G. (2011). A celebration of learning: Nothing happens until people are having fun. Bloomington, IN.

Kotter, J. (2008). A sense of urgency. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Muhammad, A. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff division. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Moving School Improvement Into the Classroom With SMART Goals

Posted on December 28, 2011

By Dennis King, PLC at Work™ associate and author
Follow @DrDennisKing on Twitter

School districts across the United States are faced with improving achievement for all students.  The complexity of this issue has resulted in the expansion of organized walkthroughs taking place to look for specific examples of instruction such as technology, clearly identified objectives, or examples of student work posted throughout the hallways or filling the classroom walls.  This leads us to ponder whether this level of snooper vision actually results in higher performing classrooms.  Perhaps a better question would be:  What evidence could teachers share through the products created by their team as they focus on high levels of learning for all students?

One strategy to drive the school-improvement process into the classroom is through the establishment of a so-called Strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results-oriented, Time-bound goal or SMART goal.  When theses goals are based upon the desired proficiency or mastery level for a common instructional unit or common essential learning (power standard) determined by the teaching team, evidence supporting the goal becomes magnified as the team strives to meet their desired goal.

The alignment of SMART goals allows teachers to focus on data more closely associated to their daily work, resulting in immediate feedback for students.  The alignment of data for classroom use moves the data from big national picture data (10,000’ view) and state data (100’ view), to school data (50’ view), team data (10’ view), down to 1’ view data focusing on students within the common unit or essential learning in each classroom.  The resulting 1’ view data creates a singular focus among team members as they strive to meet the proficiency or mastery level for each student.  For example, in this mythical third-grade room:

District, Strategic Plan Goal (10,000’)

–All students will be proficient in math by the end of the 2011-2012 school year.

School-Improvement Plan Goal (elementary) (100’)

–Last year, 83 percent of all students achieved proficiency in mathematics. This year, 90 percent of all students will achieve proficiency in mathematics, and all grade levels will improve upon last year’s performance.

Third-Grade End-of-Year Team Goal (50’)

–Last year, 79 percent of our students were proficient in mathematics according to the state assessment. This year, 90 percent of our students will achieve proficiency in mathematics on the state test.

Third-Grade Team translates the team goal into short-term goals for each math unit (10’)

–Last year, 85 percent of our students were able to demonstrate proficiency in the addition and subtraction of two-digit integers at the end of this unit. This year, at least 90 percent of students will demonstrate proficiency in two-digit integers.

Classroom Goal (1’)

–We will use results from our formative assessments and our systematic intervention process to provide additional time and support for any student who experiences difficulty in demonstrating proficiency.

As teams become results-oriented based upon the 1’ data (individual student data pertaining to the particular unit or essential learning), teachers create evidence of learning that can be shared and celebrated throughout the entire school.  This is because the evidence is based upon products developed by the team. As teams collaborate to develop common units with the identified essential learnings along with the identified proficiency level for all students (SMART goal), one piece of evidence is attained. Additional evidence for teams to share and investigate is the development of common formative assessments and interventions. The use of common formative assessments allows each team (and teacher) to use data to identify students who need focused interventions or those who need enrichment.

Additionally, as teams share products and best practice instructional strategies and interventions to meet their 1’ data SMART goal for each student, the district and school benefit as aligned goals deliver up allowing schools to meet their 100’ data goal and districts to meet their 10,000’ goal (see figure below.)

In order to support this shift to classroom driving school improvement, a cultural shift from looking for student learning to discussing student learning should occur.  As teams develop common products and share the results of their products at faculty meetings with their colleagues and with both school and district administrators, evidence of student learning becomes transparent throughout both the school and district. Additionally, ownership becomes that of individual teachers and teams. The results of this framework create a cultural shift from compliance-oriented conversations to conversations from educators who are committed to learning for all students. More importantly, increased student learning will result as teachers align and develop products based upon best practice strategies to meet their goals for each student.

A Powerful Tool for Student and Teacher Learning

Posted on December 21, 2011

By Ken Williams, PLC at Work™ associate
Follow @unfoldthesoul on Twitter!

I remember early in my leadership constantly assessing where we were as a school and setting goals for where we needed to go as a school. With a clear vision in mind, we would chart incremental milestones and then celebrate breakthroughs.  The next step was to identify our next stretch goal, which is a goal that is attainable and inspiring as it moves us outside our comfort zone.

Now, in my work as a PLC associate partnering with schools, districts, teachers, and leaders, I am very encouraged when I see more and more educators embracing collaboration as best practice. I find myself spending less time trying to convince participants about the compelling “why” of collaboration and focusing more on the “how” of collaboration.

Now that I have acknowledged this positive progress, here comes the “nudge” toward the next stretch goal. I find that teachers are seeing the benefit of identifying essential learning targets and building the teacher-created common formative assessments in an effort to answer the second critical question in a PLC: How will we know if they have learned it?

Many groups with whom I work are skillful in disaggregating the data, finding strength areas in student performance, and identifying areas of concern in student performance.  Teams identify which students “got it” and which students didn’t “get it.” In fact, it’s my assertion that most teachers can determine which kids “get it” and which kids don’t without administering common assessments. They can do so in their sleep, while multitasking, in the car, at home, while shopping, in a boat, with a goat, in the rain, or on a train. My point is, determining the performance level of students is almost hardwired into a teacher’s DNA. The stretch that collaborative teams of teachers must make is to apply that same disaggregation to opportunities to improve instructional practice.

When a collaborative team embraces learning as their fundamental purpose, one of the paradigm shifts that must take place is the idea that improved student learning is directly tied to embedded teacher learning. However, I’m finding that teams:

• identify essential learning targets
• create common formative assessments
• administer common formative assessments
• explore the questions of student performance

and then stop short of examining opportunities to discuss and improve instructional practice.

I know a part of this is about continuing to change the paradigm from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning, which includes continuing to de-privatize teaching. However, the absence of improving instructional practice makes common assessment work ring hollow. Efforts will be in vain if they don’t include, as a priority, a discussion and examination of instructional practice. If your team is looking for questions to guide their work, there is a Data Analysis Protocol (PDF) on our Tools & Resources page that you are free to print and share.

The questions in the protocol below are great for teams to start exploring this powerful side of data analysis. These questions are not hierarchical; in fact, they are each of parallel importance:

The following analysis is based on our team’s common assessment of the following essential learnings.

1. Which of our students need additional time and support to achieve at or above proficiency on an essential learning? How will we provide that time and support?
2. What is our plan to enrich and extend the learning for students who are highly proficient?
3. What is an area where my students struggled? What strategies were used by teammates whose students performed well?
4. What is an area where our team’s students struggled? What do we believe is the cause? What is our plan for improving the results?

Teams do a great job of addressing questions one and two through the lens of common form of assessment data. My challenge for teams is to embrace the philosophy that student work is examined in an effort to improve our own work. I challenge teams to give equal attention to questions three and four.

Classroom Observation Drives Instructional Practices

Posted on December 14, 2011

By George Knights, PLC at Work™ associate and director of professional learning communities and K-12 assessment at Newport-Mesa Unified School District

Moving instructional practices forward at a school site can be a daunting task. Ask any principal, team leader, or department chair how easy it is to motivate colleagues to row in the same direction, even after the whole team agreed upon a particular direction and adequate staff development time was devoted to the initiative. The good news is that many instructional leaders have found a way to drive change without empty threats or nagging monitoring. It is a lot easier than you might think, and there is a boatload of collateral benefit as well.

Dr. Duane Cox, an elementary principal, among others I’ll highlight below, has found the key that unlocks the typical obstacles to change at the school site. How does he do it? After meeting with collaborative teams, he observes teachers in their classrooms as they put the agreed-upon practices into action and celebrates the team via an all-staff email. In this case, he is reinforcing a major schoolwide and districtwide focus of coherency of curriculum and collaborative teamwork.

Subject: Highlights from Collaboration Meetings

Dear Staff: I had the opportunity to visit collaboration meetings this morning.  Here are some highlights:

The sixth-grade team discussed their curriculum map for Envision and discussed how the plan takes into consideration the essential standards and the CST testing window.  The team was engaged in discussion about Envision and how to best use the new resources.  Through this work, the team is guaranteeing a curriculum for all sixth-grade students in any of the four classrooms… Our values of collaboration, data-driven instruction, and tiered instruction are all exemplified in this work.

(Portion of email from dcox on 9-27-2011)

Dr. Cox took the additional 10 minutes to draft his experience, very specifically and intentionally, into an all-staff email. The end effect is that it creates clarity, reinforces the collective agreement, defines more deeply the expectation, and creates a moment of celebration. Despite humble objections otherwise, everyone likes to see their name in print! The old adage “People value what you monitor” certainly holds true in this case as well.

Once a critical mass of clarity and leadership focus has been achieved, the leader brings in the big bats…data. However, there is a compelling difference. This data isn’t individual teacher data; rather, it asks the question, “How well is the group doing relative to the collectively designed and agreed-upon goal?” And again, the leader puts the data, as simple as it may be, into a short email and fires it off to the entire staff. Dr. Mike Schmoker, a major proponent of this type of classroom observations, sees these tours as critical. “They should be conducted by at least two people who then report on all-school patterns of growth or need for improvement. I am less enthused about walkthroughs as a primary way to provide individual teachers with feedback that they aren’t always ready to accept” (Schmoker. FOCUS. EndNotes. 2011). Dr. Schmoker is adamant about including the collective data piece as demonstrated below by Dr. Bauermeister, a high school principal, whose data reflects an instructional design goal:

“Dear Team: Our goal this year is to focus in on two areas (Clear Objectives and Check for Understanding) of Hunter’s model of lesson delivery. As I went out and visited classrooms 92% of the classrooms I visited had the current standard posted. Only 39% listed the objective being taught in the lesson. Maybe they were there and I just didn’t see them. If you could have the objective and standards being taught written in the upper left-hand corner of your white board, it would be a lot easier for me to find.

Below is listed Hunter’s model of objectives – What, specifically, should the student be able to do, understand, and care about as a result of the teaching. Keep up the good work.”

(Portion of an email from kbauermeister on 10/18/2011)

Here he sets a baseline using collected data and clarifies what he wants to see the next time he visits the classroom. No nagging. No prodding. No memo of understanding. In fact, he ends with an encouragement. A common tenet of a professional learning community is the desire to continuously improve, and it can’t hurt for a little group motivation to fire up the collective teacher’s desire to achieve on any metric.

Armed with the camera on her iPhone, middle school principal Jennifer Smalley brilliantly captures her walkthrough in this email to the entire staff.

Subject: Re: Way to Go Jane!

(Portion of an email from jsmalley on 9/28/2011)

After a week or two of these emails to a variety of staff members, Mrs. Smalley sent this email:

Subject: Walkthrough Data Friday 10/14/11

Hi Falcon Staff,
I collected data on two of our four walkthrough objectives today. Here is how we did…
75% of the Falcon Staff had an agenda posted
75% of the Falcon Staff had an objective posted
32 classrooms were observed*
I really am proud of how well everyone is integrating the walkthrough objectives.  Telling students what they will be doing and what they are expected to learn is essential for all learners. If you need help with writing an agenda/objective or need clarification on the reasoning behind it, feel free to come by and we can work together on it.

(Portion of an email from jsmalley sent on 10/14/2011)

There is added value to this method of walkthrough observation. Dr. DuFour and Dr. Marzano, in their current book, Leaders of Learning (2011), adapted Marzano and Waters’ earlier list of 21 principal responsibilities into 19 high-leverage leader responsibilities that directly applied to a school’s collaborative efforts. Of those 19 behaviors, this simple method of walkthrough observation encompasses approximately 13 of them. Whether the leader is a principal, coach, department chair, or grade-level lead, she is seen as an instructional leader. She is seen as “in the classroom” where the learning is happening. She is seen as “one of us” and supportive to her staff. She is seen as positive, encouraging, and celebratory. I am hard-pressed to find a more simple, quick, and effective strategy to drive the change we long for in our schools.

10 Steps to Creating a PLC Culture

Posted on December 6, 2011

By Greg Kushnir, PLC at Work™ associate
Follow @gregkushnir on Twitter!

As a Solution Tree associate for the last 7 years, I have had the privilege of working with many groups of educators as they try to develop their Professional Learning Community (PLC). One of the things I try to make abundantly clear is that to become a PLC they must re-culture their school. Whether they are positive, negative or somewhere in between, all schools have preexisting cultures. The problem most schools face when beginning their journey is that the cultural ideals of a PLC are often in direct violation of their existing culture. As in the real world; when cultures clash there is often conflict. Change means stress and, as a result, school leaders can expect a certain degree of push-back. Whether this push-back is able to derail a school’s PLC efforts is dependent on the skill of the leadership team in supporting the desired cultural shift. I believe the schools that successfully move from conflict to collaboration have leadership teams that pay attention to 10 fundamental cultural building blocks.

1) Communication:

• There is a clear core purpose and it is communicated both verbally and through adult action.
• A non-negotiable list is created to clarify staff expectations.
• The language of “I” and “Try” is replaced with “We” and “Will”. The word “Will” is a commitment to action and “We” means no one person is responsible for accomplishing our goals.
• Goals are created and publicly communicated. Publicly communicating goals makes them much more likely to be accomplished.

2) Commitment:

PLC schools don’t pick and choose. They commit to deep implementation of all PLC concepts. Doug Reeves put it this way, “We found that for many change initiatives, implementation that was moderate or occasional was no better than implementation that was completely absent.”

3) Participation and Shared Responsibility:

Professional Learning Communities find ways for all staff members to contribute toward the accomplishment of their stated goals. This means that office staff, custodians, part time employees, educational assistants and singleton teachers must all feel like their efforts are making a difference.

Collaborative teams must be allowed to make decisions related to their work. It is ill advised for school leaders to believe that shared responsibility can be developed in a school where the leaders control every decision. Helping to facilitate the work of collaborative teams is very different than telling them what to do.

4) Shared Accountability:

If a school is to close the achievement gap and actually accomplish the mission of high levels of learning for every student, the teachers must develop an  accountability to each other. Teachers have to take ownership for the results they achieve and must come to believe that their actions can change the result. When teams set SMART goals that align with school goals, develop common assessments, analyse and learn from data and are afforded the freedom to to be action oriented, mutual accountability is assured.

5) Respect:

Professional Learning Communities establish norms whereby they make collective commitments to each other. They understand that dissension is not a dirty word but exclusion might be. The rules they establish for themselves ensure respectful relationships develop and as a result, contribute to developing shared accountability.

6) Solution Orientation:

A Professional Learning Community thinks differently, they move past identifying the problem to relentlessly pursuing the solution. They are action oriented and eliminate outside factors as a reason for not changing behaviour.

7) Honesty:

Professional learning communities embrace an honest evaluation of their current reality. They examine every action and will confront any behaviour that is not in line with their core purpose. Honesty builds trust which is an essential element of all professional learning communities.

8) Support:

Accomplishing something that has never been done (learning for all), means that we need to aggressively break down the culture of teacher isolationism. Professional Learning Communities realize that they can never accomplish their goals if they leave teachers behind. They understand that to establish a culture that continually improves teacher practice, they must find ways to support all teachers regardless of experience or expertise. Punishing people into improving doesn’t work.

9) Equity:

In every school, teachers make daily decisions regarding what to teach, how to assess and how to support struggling students. Even though we know that the quality of decisions made in these areas has a profound impact on student achievement, most schools allow teachers make these decisions in isolation. While usually well meaning, the result is an inequitable classroom experience for students from one classroom to the next within the same school. Professional learning communities leave nothing to chance, collectively they insure that equity is assured for every child in curriculum, assessment and intervention. Teams of teachers engage in processes to determine curricular essentials and align them throughout the school, they develop common assessments and collectively analysis the data they produce ,and they develop a system of intervention that guarantees all struggling students additional time and support.

10) Celebration:

A gain, no matter how small is still a gain. Professional learning communities recognize this fact and as a result, they celebrate each success that moves them one step closer to accomplishing their shared goals. They understand that success breeds more success!

A universal truth in becoming a professional learning community is that it doesn’t happen overnight. However, school leaders can shorten the journey and make the road much smoother by understanding the importance of paying attention to their school’s cultural development.

No Excuses for No Homework

Posted on December 2, 2011

By Steve Pearce, PLC at Work™ associate and principal at Jane Addams Junior High School
Follow @StevePearce4 on Twitter

I’d wager that most middle grades teachers spend incredible amounts of time dealing with students and their homework issues. I’m also willing to bet that homework plays a major role in student failure at middle schools and high schools across our nation.

What does a middle grades staff do to combat this relatively common problem?

At Jane Addams Junior High in Schaumburg, Illinois, “Missing homework is not an option” is a popular phrase around school. The staff developed a system that makes it impossible for our 730 students to not do their homework. The best part of this system is that it has helped improve overall student achievement, which is the primary goal of every school.

We Believe

It all started with a philosophical change. The staff at Jane Addams embraced a major tenet of the Professional Learning Community at Work model by “doing whatever it takes” to help students. Per Rick DuFour’s recommendations in the book Raising the Bar and Closing the Gap, we decided to combat low homework performance by providing more time and support for the students.

At Jane Addams, we believe:

1. The purpose of our school is to ensure all students learn.
2. It is our responsibility to create the conditions that promote high levels of learning for all.
3. Completing homework is essential to students being successful in their learning.
4. Therefore, we will insist students complete their homework, and we will create systems to ensure they do so.

While this philosophy seems simplistic at first glance, it is significant because it acknowledges that we as educators must ensure the academic success of our students down to the detail of making sure they complete their homework. No longer do we give zeroes for missing work or half credit for homework a day late. Instead, we require the students to do the work. This lets the students know that we value this homework so much that we will not let them out of it.

The Specifics

Our first step was setting up a Guided Study Hall (GSH) program. By 2:15 p.m. every Thursday, all teachers are required to enter into a database the names of students who are missing assignments. Our loose criteria is the “2 and 2” system. Students who are missing 2 or more assignments from 2 or more classes are put on the GSH list for the following week. Students who don’t meet the criteria can qualify for GSH if there are openings.

Students are informed on Friday that they qualified for the GSH program for the following week. This means they are required to spend their lunch and study hall time (40 minutes total) completing their homework in a classroom supervised by a certified staff member. When they find out they’ve qualified for GSH, many students complete their homework over the weekend and are excused from the program. Those who do not are in GSH until their homework is complete. This cycle continues every week.

If GSH does not solve the homework completion issue for a student, we move on to Step 2.

Step 2 involves an after-school program called Crusader Club (CC). Students who are still missing work after two weeks in GSH are assigned to the Crusader Club, where they work from 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Mondays to complete their work under the supervision of a teacher. All staff members are aware of who has qualified for the program via an electronic school share folder. Many of them stop by CC and check in with the students who were missing homework from their class, providing a few minutes of direction and guidance.

Students who are still having homework issues can be kept after school on Tuesdays and Thursdays also. (At the beginning of the school year, we secure parental permission for students to participate in our after-school programs.)

Students may not opt out of these programs. If they are missing work and need the support of Crusader Club, they must stay after school.

Believe it or not, GSH and CC do not ensure 100% of our students complete their homework. So we added a third step.

The final step in our homework completion program is General Support Intervention (GSI). If, after four weeks of GSH and two weeks of CC students still are not succeeding because of missing work or low test scores, they qualify for this program.

These students are withdrawn from one of their two electives and given a full 40-minute period during the school day with a certified teacher. Typically 4–8 students are in each GSI period. We currently have five GSI periods supporting 25 students.

We understand the concern of those who balk at the idea of pulling students from electives to help them complete homework. However, we do this because these students are unable to do the required work and need to have more time and support during the school day.

The carrot for students entering GSI is that as soon as they show that they can complete their homework on a regular basis, they can return to their elective class.

The Results

The homework intervention plan sounds good on paper, and in practice it is working and showing positive results. We are pleased with not only the reduced number of failures, but also with the higher level of student achievement since the introduction of this system at the beginning of the 2008–2009 school year.

The number of failure grades given per trimester declined from 78 at the end of the 2007–2008 school year to 0 at the end of last year. On state testing, the percentage of our students who scored “meets” or “exceeds” rose from 87.8% and 89.6% in reading and math (respectively) in 2007–2008 to 91.4% and 95.2% in 2008–2009.

Appropriate Consequences

In his book The Learning Leader, Douglas Reeves says, “The appropriate consequence for failing to complete an assignment is completing the assignment. That is, students lose privileges, free time, and unstructured class or study hall time, and they are required to complete the assignment.”

The staff members at Jane Addams have embraced this belief and developed a system that makes it a reality.

—

This article, originally published in the August 2010 issue of Middle Ground, is posted here with permission from NMSA.

How Can Elective Teachers Participate in the PLC Process?

Posted on November 30, 2011

By Rick DuFour

I received the following letter from the chairman of a Fine Arts Department. The question she raises is one facing all elective teachers.

“I have a question that I was hoping you could help me with. I am the department head for the fine arts department, and over the past 3 years we have had so much trouble doing our PLC. Our department is made up of 1 drama teacher, 1 band teacher, 1 broadcasting teacher, 1 choir teacher and 1 art teacher. We want to collaborate, and we want to share data and improve instruction but we can’t figure out what we have in common to look at and analyze. Do you have any insight you could give me on how we can be successful? This is my first year as department head, and in all honesty…in years past it has felt more like co-blaboration instead of collaboration.”

Here is my response.

I think the best route for you to go is to use vertical teams with the junior highs or electronic teams. If the proximity of the schools does not allow for face-to-face meetings, use the technology that is available to you.For example, a band teacher at the high school has a vested interest in working with junior high band directors so that they can create a great band program. If the principals could coordinate their schedules, they could meet using the technology like Skype to agree on standards students should achieve at their various grade levels and how to assess whether or not their bands are achieving the standards. They could videotape performances or rehearsals to share with their teammates, jointly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the performance, and discuss ways to improve upon it. They could set SMART goals regarding the ratings their bands get in competitions or the number of students who qualify for distinction in the regional or state band, or the number of students who remain in band from 8th to 9th grade.

Art teachers could do the same. As you know, the College Board has established criteria for assessing the quality of student art work, and teachers submit digital portfolios of their students’ work for review and assessment. A high school and junior high art teacher could do the same, sharing digital pictures of their students work for review and discussion of how to help more students move to a higher level of production.

This vertical articulation should have the same expectations as teachers of the core curriculum. Teachers agree on what they want students to learn, agree on the standard of quality they seek, agree on the criteria they will use in assessing the quality of student work, practice applying the criteria until they can assess the same work consistently (inter-rater reliability), and then use the results (the evidence of student learning) to consider ways they can improve upon student performance. They should set SMART goals each year to help more students achieve at higher levels and they should establish norms about how they will work together.

If there is no teacher at the junior high who teaches a subject (like broadcasting) you should work with your teacher to find another teacher in the state to become an electronic teammate.

Finally, another strategy some schools have used  is to have the fine arts department coordinate a school-wide program that will engage all students in the arts in a meaningful way. For example, they assume responsibility for all freshmen for a block of time (for example, one morning) to provide them with a program aimed at helping develop an awareness and appreciation of the arts. The program could have several components to provide students with some options. Students could be asked to provide feedback on the performance which could then be used to set goals for improvement of future performances. The freshmen teachers of other departments could use this morning for collaborative time. The next month the program could be sophomores, then juniors, etc.

These options require a lot of creativity from the teachers, but after all, that is what they are teaching.