Redcliffe State High School

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

In 2012 and 2013 our school focussed on collaboratively building teacher quality through the implementation of The Art and Science of Teaching (known in our school as TAST).  Staff worked collaboratively in TASTBud groups of mixed faculty teachers to discuss pedagogy and focus on learning and implementing the pedagogical framework together. This focus reinforced and strengthened our belief that Redcliffe SHS has great teachers but many teachers were isolated in their classrooms when it came to implementing the curriculum. 

The journey to becoming a PLC has taken many years and Redcliffe High continues to refine our procedures and processes each year.  The timeline that led us to a successful PLC is:

Year 1 (2013) – The implementation of the TASTbuds – which were cross –curriuclar staff discussing pedagogy.  A booklet outlining the different elements of TAST was developed for each group to focus on each week.  Shortcomings of this was that faculties were discussing content and not focussing on student data.

Year 2 (2014) – Ongoing professional development occurred through every stage and in our 2nd year we developed  a school proposal  titled 'Transforming Our School Culture - Redcliffe SHS 2014'. The proposal was based on the DuFour PLCs at Work model. The School Leadership Team discussed the concept and proposals, we worked with Tonia Flanagan as our critical friend and teachers were given professional development both internal and with our critical friend. We introduced PLTs out of timetabled time (but within union guidelines) in 2014. Every teacher was participating in two PLTs: one TASTBud and one Faculty PLT per week.  

Year 3 (2015) – Continued to work with PLTs and developed a booklet to assist faculties focus each meeting.  Developed meeting norms and ways to address staff who did not follow norms.

Year 4 (2016) – Changed the school structure to allow staff to participate in PLT time in scheduled school time.  This also allowed the school to introduce our response to intervention process into the school, knows as AIR (Academic Intervention and Response).  The time given to staff is a considerable cost to the school but shows the staff the value we have for PLT time in our school. Created a HRS team which consisted of a staff member from each faculty as well as the admin to focus on areas identified in our HRS self-audit.  We conducted an audit on Levels 1 – 3 which assisting completing our school strategic plan. In this year Redcliffe provided each faculty with a full planning day.  We moved from the booklet to a flipchart which focused on the cycle of learning. This is used by faculties each meeting to keep the conversation about student data and progress.

Year 5 (2017) – Redcliffe SHS continued to strengthen the PLT and AIR process.  In addition, we introduced PLT Critical Friends, HOD PLT Observation Roster (which in 2018 became the SLT Observation Roster), PLT Virtual Classroom sessions with Colin Sloper, the first 'PLT Health Check' and we partnered with another 'Du Four' PLT school relatively close to us. 

Year 6 (2018) – Continued to strengthen current practices.  Changed the meeting schedule to incorporate a TAST focus.  This is run by an allocated faculty each meeting, where they share best practice and have all staff choose a strategy and have them implement this into their classroom.

Ongoing – To maintain the highly effective PLT at our school we continue to send staff to Professional development, this includes sending a group of staff to the HRS summit each year.  Redcliffe SHS continues to work with other schools in our area who are also establishing their school as a PLT.  We continue to refine our processes and changes are constantly made to improve student outcomes.

 

1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

Our school forms a Professional Learning Community (PLC), it is made up of Faculty Professional Learning Teams (PLT).  Our Faculty Professional Learning Teams (PLTs) see teachers committed to collaboratively working together in an ongoing process of collective inquiry and action research in order to achieve better results for all students.  

The Logistics of How Our PLTs Work:

5 hours planning time at the end of each year to prepare for the following year

2.5 hour planning meeting once per term (Student Free Day Afternoons – Week 6)

60 mins per week (Friday afternoon 1.40 – 2.40pm) of timetabled time.

 1.       Faculty PLT Planning Meeting (Whole Day):

PLT members will develop the curriculum, by:

  • front loading of summative assessment – developed at the start of the unit
  • identification of the guaranteed and viable curriculum by identifying essential knowledge and skills (de-clutter the curriculum) needed by the student across the year/s.
  • development of Learning Goals based upon the Essential Knowledge/Skills
  • creating Proficiency Scales for each Learning Goal, including vocab / spelling list / and cognitive goals
  • recording the Learning Goals and Proficiency Scales – including development of vocabulary and cognitive verbs.
  • ensure the communicating of Learning Goals and Proficiency Scales to students, have Learning Goals on display in the classroom and Proficiency Scales provided to students in student workbooks.
  • development a common language

 2.       Faculty PLT Planning Meeting (2.5hr):

In Week 6 of every term there is a 2.5hour SFD Afternoon planning meeting: 

  • January SFD – 2.5hrs allocated to Faculty PLTs for Term 1 planning.
  • SFD Afternoons In Lieu use each term to plan for the following term/year. All subject staff participate as a whole group to determine planning for each year level. 
  • development of formative assessment
  • tracking of student achievement through Proficiency Scales
  • use of data to determine success of current strategies and focus on desired outcomes
  • introduction of SMART goals for each PLT

 3.       Weekly PLT Meetings: Timetabled Time / Friday 1.40pm – 2.40pm

The weekly PLT groups are generally smaller year level groups (this is at the discretion of the HOD) to:

  • fine tune and monitor implementation of PLT plans/Planning Matrix
  • critically reflect on what is and is not working - curriculum / pedagogy  
  • review progress on proficiency scales
  • amend/monitor intervention strategies
  • Formatively Assess – use outcomes to benchmark, structure differentiation and determine the type of intervention required at classroom, faculty and school wide level.
  • Analyse data – how do you know it is working using spreadsheets
  • Intervene – deliberate interventions at Level 1, 2 and 3 / drill down to the individual / change practices and plan improvement pathways with explicit actions at all levels, including re-teach.
  • Critically reflect on what worked and what didn’t work - change practice.
  • Moderate summative assessment.
  • Review the plan and program
  • Review targets

After teachers have examined the results of the common formative assessment at the weekly PLT meetings, the team analyses how all students performed. Team members identify strengths and weaknesses in student learning and discuss how they can build on the strengths and address the weaknesses. The team discusses what is working and what is not, and members discuss new strategies that they can implement in their classrooms to raise student achievement.

Teachers use formative assessments to identify what the kids know and who needs additional support to acquire the essential knowledge/skills. Collaborative PLT conversations sees members share data, strategies, materials, questions, concerns, and results. These discussions adopt a problem-solving approach to any issues evident.

Our PLTs align to our intervention process which is designed to improve student results with designed disruption to the status quo.  It is also an opportunity to share best practice (strategies that work) with colleagues, collaboratively plan, moderate and feedback.  Through PLTs teachers know exactly what they will be teaching and work with a willingness to move things forward and identify strategies to improve outcomes for all students. Every teacher belongs to a PLT, they are focussed on student learning.  Teams focus on learning outcomes and generate practices and resources that reflect that focus, such as lists of essential knowledge, different kinds of assessment, analysis of student achievement, and strategies for improving results.

 

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

Redcliffe State High School is using the High Reliability Schools (HRS) framework to shape our strategic vision for the school. A key component of HRS is to have an effective intervention strategy. The school is engaged with 3 levels of Intervention.  

 Tier 1:  Classroom (Teacher developed / differentiation) 

The introduction of Proficiency Scales in the Junior School shifted our focus to student learning and students developing goals and knowing specifically what they need to do to achieve them. We tied the levels of the Proficiency Scales to our school vision and SABER proficiency Scales were established. 

 Tier 2:  Faculty (Cohort strategies, determined in each faculty according to needs)

Faculties have chosen different ways to address Tier 2 intervention.  Currently much of this intervention occurs outside of class time eg. at lunch and after school. In 2017 we conducted a trial of student generated assessment to address Tier 2 intervention within the classroom.  This trial was successful and has been extended in 2018 to include more classes and subject areas.

 Tier 3:  Whole School

The Academic Intervention and Response (AIR) program has been implemented to maximise the outcomes of all students at Redcliffe State High School.  We have a strong academic culture and we believe that all students are capable of succeeding at school if they are given the opportunity to do so. The school timetable has been adjusted on Friday to accommodate the AIR time.  AIR time occurs on between Friday 1.30 pm – 2.40 pm. Students who do not need to attend AIR go home at 1.10pm. Students who stay are divided into two groups of students for AIR time – Compulsory and Voluntary.

 Voluntary Students:

Parents or students nominate to stay at school and participate in AIR.  There are groups for study, IT and GO run groups on resilience.

 Compulsory Students:

Intervention is provided to a range of students.

1. Students requiring literacy and numeracy support are identified via NAPLAN data – this involves students in Years 7 – 9. Initially this group focussed on Reading, in 2017 the focus was writing and in 2018 the focus is Spelling. Students who are working on literacy and numeracy work with tutors to attain a literacy and numeracy level that is appropriate for their year level.

2. Faculty curriculum students of concern in are identified by classroom teachers and PLTs via a referral process.  Students are identified in this group if they are at risk of not reaching ‘Baseline’ in a subject because gaps in learning have not been successful in Level 1 and 2 Intervention or they have missed important concepts in the class.  Senior students are placed on the students of concern list or if they are at risk of not attaining their QCE.

3. Students who are absent for an exam. Teachers complete the referral form and provide the assessment piece for completion. This ensures that students do not miss class time to catch up on exams.

4. Students who truant a class. Teachers refer students who have truanted their class and provide work that they have missed.

5. Re-Teach is a relatively new aspect of AIR. PLTs identify key points in time in their unit to identify individual students who are not reaching ‘Baseline’ using formative assessment.  A teacher/s then re teach essential knowledge or skills for students to have additional time to grasp the concepts.

Teachers follow the Student of Concern process, they complete the documents for referral to AIR.  Completed forms have work attached and are submitted to the AIR Teacher Aide.  Parents are contacted regarding the mandatory attendance of students at AIR.

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

 Professionalism is … continually improving through deliberate practice and use of high probability strategies.  The Grattan Institute 'Making Time for Great Teaching' report says that teachers need more time to work collaboratively. This has been our goal.  Our strategies in building high performing, collaborative teams include:

  1. Internal Professional Development:

Initially PD was related to a school generated teacher workbook which provided guidance, resources, activities and templates for the implementation of PLTs. The PD has progressed over the years to be less of a general nature to more fine-tuned aspects identified through observations and feedback through HRS meetings and PLT Observations.

2. External Professional Development:

Initially we worked with Hawker Brownlow to provide general professional development when we were introducing PLTs.  Tonia Flanagan worked with our school and was a Critical Friend during the introduction.  We have sent all school leaders to PD initially through Hawker Brownlow and then with Solution Tree. The whole School Leadership Team have attended HRS conferences and almost all of the teachers in the HRS Committee have now attended.

3. Virtual Professional Development:

In 2017 we decided we needed fine tuning and also needed to provide guidance to staff new to the school since the initial training. Our school has a Virtual Classroom and we worked with Colin Sloper (Solution Tree) in 3 Virtual PD sessions – they were all voluntary but very well attended. One of the outcomes of this PD was the establishment of PLT Health Checks. We continued these virtual PDs in 2018 and have kept recordings of these. In 2019 we have shared these recordings with new teachers to the school.

4. PLT Health Checks:

As a result of the Virtual PD we created a PLT Health Check process based on the 12 step PLT process Colin introduced us to.  The 12 steps in the cycle covered all 4 DuFour questions but provided that practical implementation.  Making up a health check and having PLT work through the check, then creating an action plan based on current status and future goals has been very effective.  The School leadership Team has determined it is to be completed twice each year.

5. PLT Counter Topper Flip charts:

Counter toppers are used in PLT meetings, they sit on the table so that they are easily seen and can be referenced through the PLT meeting.  They contain the norms, the what ifs…, the 12 step cycle and a breakdown of each step. If in doubt teachers refer to expectations for each cycle.

6. PLT Observations and Critical Friends:

The School Leadership team decided in 2016 that they wanted to see how other faculties run their PLTs to share ideas and support each other.  We created a roster initially. In 2017 we linked HOD into partners and they became Critical Friends – a more structured support process. In 2018 executive leaders were invited to be part of the Observation Roster.

7. PLT Planning Days with Coaches:

We had annually provided faculty PLTs with a full day of planning at the end of each year in preparation for the next year.  In 2017, we made the decision that two of our coaches would attend with the specific task of embedding LG, Proficiency Scales and Cognitive Verbs with the junior curriculum.  This is very effective and highly valued by teachers.

8. Working with other schools who are implementing the Du Four model:

In 2017 we visited Helensvale SHS to see how they were implementing DuFour PLTs. We came away with some great ideas, not just about PLTs.  At the start of  2018 Helensvale visited our school to see how we implemented the DuFour PLTs and what we did with our Intervention.  We will now be sending Heads of Department to work with Helensvale Faculty PLTs and have reciprocal visits.We will also try to coordinate our schools when they attend PLT / RTI professional development so that they sit together and share ideas.

9. HRS Committee:

At the start of our journey a small group of people got together to create the PLT Action Plan. This group has grown and is now the High Reliability School (HRS) Committee. The committee consists of school leaders, HODs, coaches and classroom teachers. This team tracks our implementation of the HRS framework with particular attention to PLTs, Learning Goal, Proficiency Scales, Professional Development, Intervention and 3 Types of Assessment.

 

Achievement Data Files

Additional Achievement Data

The following data is taken from the Redcliffe SHS School Profile sheets provided by the Queensland Department of Education and Training.

A to C results - English

Year 7:  92% in 2014 and 97.1% in 2018  (+ above state)

Year 8:  93.6% in 2014 and 96.6% in 2018 (+ above state)

Year 9:  84.7% in 2014 and 991.1% in 2018 (+ above state)

Year 10:  83.5% in 2014 and 93.9% in 2018 (+ above state)

Results - Maths

In 2016 we introduced Maths Pathway to year 7 - 9 to address declining results in Maths.  This program is an individualised program for each student and reports are customised for each student. 

Results of Maths Pathway show:

Average Growth in Maths class is 60%.  With Maths Pathway, average growth in Year 7 & 8 in 2018 was 132%. 

100% Growth means mastering one year of curriculum content in one calendar year.

Our students achieved double the average. 

Year 10:  94.1% in 2014 to 76.5% in 201(below state) This is was the introduction of the new program for Australia and we focusing on improving these results.

A to C results - Science

Year 7:  84% in 2014 to 89.6% in 2018 (+ above state)

Year 8:  93.2% in 2014 to 91.4% in 2018 (+ above state)

Year 9:  91.8% in 2014 to 86.1% in 2018 (equal to state)

Year 10:  80.2% in 2014 to 77.1% (below state)

National Testing (NAPLAN)

Year 9 (2008-2018) Writing, Numeracy, Reading, Grammar and Punctuation and Spelling are all in the Improvement same/greater than Nation quadrant.  The Year 9 National Mean Score is greater than nation in all areas.

Year 7 (2008-2018) in the 3 months that we have them in our school the national mean score data shows that Reading and Spelling are all in the Improvement same/greater than Nation quadrant. Other aspects of national testing are developing.

We are similar to nation in the Upper 2 Bands in Year 7 Spelling and Year 9 Numeracy. We have had improvement over time in the Upper Two Bands in Year 9 Grammar and Punctuation and Numeracy.

Attendance data has improved which indicates higher levels of student engagement. In 2014 overall attendance was 87.7% and has increased to 89.4% for 2018.  This is above state average.

 We have also seen a decrease in the number of student absences below 85% in 2014 29.7% of students were below 85% attendance where in 2018 we had 22.9% in the same range. This is better than state average.

Senior Data

In 2014 our Exit OP data was 76.3% receiving an OP 1-15. In 2018 it was 82.7%. (above state)

The rate of QCE attainment for the Yr 12 students in 2018 was 100% (above state).

Intervention Data

Writing Intervention:

The writing course was aimed at students who had an inconsistency in their NAPLAN and A - E data.  The course has been running for two years with the following results:

Between Year 5 and 7 (2015 in Year 5 and 2017 in Year 7) NAPLAN writing (persuasive text) data showed a relative gain 56.7 points.  Our mean for writing was 517.  This is significantly higher than the State (private and public) mean (502.5) and slightly higher than the National mean (513.0).  19% were in the U2Bs compared with 14% of the State and 16.6% of the Nation. 93% were above NMS, again which is significantly higher than State and National percentages.  This data was similar in 2016 when the stimulus was narrative.  We have honed our teaching strategies further and are quietly confident of further improvement in 2018.

Between Year 7 and Year 9 (2015 in Year 7 and 2017 in Year 9) students at Redcliffe State High School showed a relative gain of 44.9 points in writing.  Our mean was 559.4.  Again this is significantly higher than the State mean in writing (538.6) and slightly higher than the National mean of 551.9.  15.3% of our students were in the U2Bs for writing compared with 12.7 % in the State and 15.4% in the Nation.  81.5% were above NMS, again significantly higher than State and National.  Again we are quietly anticipating further improvement in 2018 as a result of changes to programs and teaching strategies.

Our writing data continues to buck the State and National decline in writing data.

 

 

In 2019 we achieved accreditation in Levels 1 - 4 in the High Reliablity Schools (HRS) framework.

In 2019 we also received a commendation in the Secondary Schools section of the Regional Showcase awards.

 

Top