Bonham Elementary (2022)
- Number of Students: 550
- Percent Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 62%
- Percent of Limited English Proficient: 32%
- Percent of Special Education: 8%
- White: 15.23%
- Black: 7.35%
- Hispanic: 67.89%
- Asian: 5.87%
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: 0.18%
- American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.18%
- Multiracial: 3.3%
- Other: 0%
Since 2014, the PLC at Work process has been a district commitment at Midland Independent School District (ISD). As a classroom lead teacher, and AP I was immersed in learning through various Solution Tree institutes. As the principal of Bonham Elementary (2018-2022), our PLC journey began with my attending an additional Solution Tree Institute in 2018. Having been even further inspired by the Solution Tree Institutes, it was imperative to share the focus and the instructional process of the PLC at Work and build upon the framework at Bonham.
Our team met together with every intention to collaborate, however we were not focusing on the instructional process to the full intent. At times, we were leaving without a product or without a detailed plan to implement to ensure our students were getting served with specificity. We knew that there were improtant structures missing in our community. The first thing we did was ensure we knew our roles, and strengths as a team. Our Bonham teachers established "norms" such as begin on time to end on time, come prepared, be all in . Roles were also established to ensure that everyone team member was involved. We then knew we needed to ensure that everyone was working towards and common mission and vision. Once we aligned our mission and vision, we collaborated and agreed on our collective committments. After, we ensured that all teams knew how they conributed to our campus goals by aligning them from campus level, all the way to the student level. Bonham leaders knew and understood the our goals from the state level , district level and campus level. It was then that our team got together to understand alignment and individual grade level team contributions in order to establish SMART goals that would ensure we met our goals.
Together with a guiding coalition we demonstrated that our comittments were not something we say; they are a promise to all students and stressed that collaborative time is where we keep focussed on student instruction. We began by having each team review its norms and turn them into collective commitments. Today, our collective commitments are embedded in the culture of our school. Our collective committments are not put on a shelf as they are read aloud at the onset of every PLC meeting. During the summer before school begins, teachers revisit their norms and collective commitments. We don't start school without reviewing our collective commitments (Resource F Additional Resources tab). This year for 2022-2023 our committments were revisited and made to be more robust such as expressed in "Formative Tools For Leaders in a PLC a Work" book by Kim Bailey and Chris Jakicic.
Foundational practices were modeled consistently so that their practice became a part of the culture of Bonham Elementary. We implemented protocols for collaborative meetings, such as data agendas and forms that would be completed online by collaborative team members during each meeting. There was a level of accountability across our grade and content areas.
It was imperative for our teachers to understand that each critical question ecompassed specific actions and to understand that these "Four Critical Questions" should flow and become a cycle (Data Driven Instruction clarification doc Additional resources page). We began by ensuring that all teams knew that when we were addressing Critical Question 1, "What do we want students to learn?" we were unpacking/unwrapping, and diving deep into the prority standards. We were determing learning targets and having critical converstations around that.We continued modeling collaborative behavior by demonstrating what successful collaboration looks like by scaffolding. We began by unpacking and creating student-centered learning targets. We modeled the lesson planning process and gave our teachers time to model instructional practices to each other. We taught lessons to our teams before teaching lessons to students. Through leading by example, I sometimes modeled how to give and receive constructive instructional feedback to improve our Tier 1 teaching practice. We implemented the Six steps for Effective Feedback (Resource A: Additonal resources tab) based on our instructional needs. The Six Steps for Effective Feedback is an interactive dialogue script used to model coaching face or real-time coaching sessions—the Six Steps For Effective Feedback Form (Resource A). Yearly, we refine our Six Steps for Effective Feedback based on the instructional needs of each teacher and the problem of practice for instruction. The process of providing effective feedback is now so deeply rooted that it is part of our culture at Bonham Elementary and supports our commitment to the PLC at Work process.
When we were addressing question 2, "how will we know if they learned it?" we were creating formative assesments, exit tickets, and deciding on deadlines for data meetings, but also ensuring all team members discussed expectations for assessments such as time allowed to test, rubrics and other factors. When we would be ready for Questions 3 and 4 (What do we do if they learned it? What do we do if they didnt learn it?) this was held in a "data meeting" format. Teachers would bring their student assessments, the teacher exemplar and data . This was expected within 2 days of the assessment being given. During that time we would analyze the student work and find gaps or sometimes even find alternate ways of students showing their thinking that we would add to our unpacking document. During this data meeting we would determine who needed enrichment, and who needed intervention. The intervention was leveled based on the student level of understanding. At that point teachers would create reteach plans for their classes based on the percentage at meets or above. Teachers would rehearse their reteach plans and provide each other with feedback. Essential standard data from this data meeting was tracked and followed up by Adminstration. ( Resource D and H additional resources tab).
Although it was not easy setting the perimeters for effective collaborative and instructional practices, it was worth it as now we have a different climate. Today, we are genuinely collaborating, not co-blaborating. Our teachers hold each other accountable for adhering to our mission, vision, comittments and goals.WE commit to the PLC at Work process, as demonstrated by our daily behaviors and collective commitments written in our Bonham PLC Compact (Resource F, additional recources ), created with input from our Guiding Coalition.For this 2022-2023, Dr.Gallegos is now the campus Principal for Bonham Elementary and will continue the charge of a collective committment of collaboration where student needs , learning, and academic outcomes are a priority.
1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.
The history of the STAAR (State of Texas Academic Assessment of Readiness) began in 2018-2019. The STAAR Test consists of test results on three domains: Domain 1 for Academic Achievement, Domain 2 for student growth and Domain 3 for closing student gaps and subpopulations (a combination of Domain 1 and Domain 2). During the 2018-2019 school year, Bonham Elementary rated as a D overall. Specifically, Bonham was rated an “F” in the growth Student Growth domain which means students did not meet their progress goal on the STAAR. In 2019-2020 no STAAR was given due to the pandemic. Again in 2020-2021, we received “No Rating” status due to a natural disaster as we remained in a pandemic.
Our scores for the 2021-2022 school year in Domain 1-Academic Achievement increased from a D rating to a C rating. Domain 2a-Student Growth indicates our reading overall scaled score has improved from a F rating to a strong possibility of obtainaing a B rating as per our preliminary scores show. Overall our preliminary rating has increased from a D to a B. Our subpopulations demonstrated significant growth in Domain 3, closing the gaps in the academic growth status section in reading for Hispanic, white, economically disadvantaged, EL monitor, and special populations; they have achieved their growth targets for this specific domain. In math, our subgroups that achieved their targets consisted of the following subgroups: hispanic, economically disadvantaged, EL monitored, and special education. In reading our hispanic, white, economically disadvantaged, English learners and special education population met their specific targets in growth.
To achieve the growth at Bonham Elementary, we began by accessing our school's current data reality. Although it was challenging, we took ownership of our data, Bonham was a failing school, but to us, it was a school of opportunity filled with the challenge of discovering all of our students' untapped resources. Our Guiding Coalition then determined what strategies and actions we needed to implement for our schools' path to success.
Our Guiding Coalition then planned a school improvement plan for the structural changes needed to create a learning-focused culture. We started by creating a culture where data is not a bad word. Data had to be used strategically to promote growth for our teachers and students. Due to the specific ways we use data to monitor growth, our teachers are all data literate. Data literate means that the teachers know data, can interpret it, and create a plan for the data based on the students' particular needs. Our system rule that data are only fresh within a two-day time frame. As time is of the essence, our teachers bring their fresh data to our collaborative meetings, in which students' proficiency levels are prioritized. As anyone visiting our school can see, that data is a part of our culture of achievement. We are not doing it with a mindset of look how bad he is doing; she is doing. We do it to demonstrate our growth; there is always room for improvement.
Our weekly collaborative meetings are when we conduct a deep dive analysis into exit tickets or CFAs. To check for understanding and aggressive monitoring, we run a "gap analysis" where we focus on student work during this time. The student's work shows us an example of the student's thought process. Teachers collaborate and determine the student gaps and develop reteach/enrichment plans to reach those who did not achieve mastery and those who did as a response to PLC critical questions three and four. Next, we analyze gaps and create SMART goals. Students create their own Wildly Important Goals (WIGS) and track their progress daily to ensure they are on track. Daily reading records are utilized to monitor student reading progress. Through student-led conferences with teachers, our students set academic SMART goals after each common formative assessment.
Weekly collaborative meetings provide a time for conversations built on a deep-level analysis of the results of our common formative assessments to create the best strategies and action steps with follow-ups. During our collaborative meetings, we discuss student performance data by providing feedback to teachers regarding their students' success in achieving standards compared to other teachers' students who took the same common formative assessment at the same time.
As a result of doing the “Right Work,” we thought it was essential to monitor the gaps and the successes to determine the next steps and strategies (Resource D). Another strategy we use to ensure we use our collaborative time wisely is that our teachers have a PLC Agenda Topic Calendar (Resource E) for data dives and discussions at the onset of the school year. The schedule for PLC Agenda Topics is on the bottom of our monthly maps as well. Based on the recommendation of the Guiding Coalition, the PLC Agenda Topic Focus has now been adjusted from monthly to a weekly instructional focus for our collaborative meetings. Although the PLC Agenda Topic general outline, our teachers still determine the topic(s) for discussion for their specific content or grade level. At Bonham Elementary it is a continuous cycle of collective inquiry in determining next steps and strategies for supporting student learning on a timely basis.
2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.
Creating systems of interventions and extensions began when our Guiding Coalition developed the Bonham RTI Rubric (Resource G) to structure expectations of what our "Response to Intervention" (RTI) block should look like schoolwide. The rubric provides guidelines for student learning for grades kindergarten through second reading and third through sixth reading, math, and science. Rubric Proficiency Levels range from Needs Improvement, Approaching Proficient, Proficient, and Exemplar, along with lists of expectations for the classroom learning environment and intervention systems. The rubric helps teachers understand that a thriving learning environment consists of solid Tier 1 instruction, including learning targets, leveled literacy, differentiation, and small group instruction supporting Tier 2 intervention and extension. By implementing the rubric, teachers understood the expectations for creating systems of intervention and extension in their classrooms so that we provide additional time for daily intervention and extension.
At Bonham Elementary, our systems of a culture of achievement have helped us to ensure we are providing additional time for structured, targeted systems of intervention for every grade level during our RTI blocks which are held four days a week from 2:15 until 3:00 p.m.
We use our collaborative time to focus on PLC Critical Questions Three and Four to solidify our instruction during our RTI as a time for intervention and extension of the standards. To make RTI successful, collaborative teams meet vertically for reading, mathematics, and science. The vertical teams discuss successes and struggles that our students and teachers are experiencing, and the team makes suggestions that are working for other teachers. Our teams meet as a grade level, teachers disseminate data, which is previous exit ticket, cfas, and other data from NWEA Map etc. We have conversations on who got it and who didn't, to focus on where strategic teaching is needed.
With students in grades self contained grades k-2 :
After our student data is dissemenated we look at teacher level strengths. Students in need of specific skills will attend tier 2 and 3 intervention with these teachers that demonstrate a strengths in that area. Students who are needing enrichment are grouped with the remaining teachers who plan specificly for them. Specific exit criteria is established by teachers as well . Teachers create small groups and a daily schedule that provide intervention using research-based teaching practices.
For students in grades 3-6 Departmentalized:
Teachers collaborate to determine the best schedule of services for their students during the 2:15 -3:00 RTI/Enrichment block. A schedule is created to allow students to receive RTI/Enrichment from all teachers needed. As administration I also had a record of students who were trending not to meet their STAAR growth goal for the year, so I would strategically visit the classroom looking for the particular students to ensure they were working with their teacher on essential learning. During this block students receive tier 2 and 3 instruction to ensure a deeper understanding of essential learning.
3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.
Our high-performing collaborative teams focus on improved student learning by focusing on teacher collaboration as a key to improving instruction and reaching all students. Our collaborative team is about OUR students and what every teacher can do to benefit all of OUR students. Our teams seek new methods of teaching and learning by testing the methods, rehearsing the methods on each other, implementing them with our students, and then reflecting on the student learning results. Our teams recognize that student engagement and experience are critical to improved student learning. We, as the teachers, learn by doing, and so do our students.
Our teams believe strongly in NO OPT out for every student regardless of education level. Our teams have put into place a system of intervention that requires all teachers and all students to be fluid. We share our data, we share our processes, and we share our students. Our teams identify and make plans for students to receive extra support before they fail. We monitor student learning daily through exit tickets and informal assessments. We provide help rather than waiting or inviting students to seek help. All our students have access to support regardless of their teacher of record. Our teams share students across grade levels, allowing students to receive help from all teachers irrespective of who the student is assigned.
We focus on how to engage in high-level conversations modeled through coaching and observation feedback. When teachers are in a collaborative setting, they can articulate effectively. There is clear communication between the administration and our collaborative teams to ensure our focus is on improved learning for all students.
Conversations are based on the instructional process and specify PLC Critical Questions One through Four.
In addition, every teacher has a lead teacher, specialist, or MCL to provide coaching and feedback. We have weekly collaborative meetings that allow k-2 to meet horizontally and 3-6 to meet vertically by content. We discuss strengths and weaknesses and help each other determine a plan to meet the needs of each child. We use MCLs that pull groups and touch in to ensure that every child is taught by an effective teacher besides their classroom teacher in reading and in math.
Achievement Data Files
Additional Achievement Data
Presented in the K-2 Fountas and Pinell growth attachment is our reading proficiency levels for our campus since 2018. Our K-2 collaborates by attending their protected time during the school day. During this time, they rehearse tier 1 instruction, unwrap priority standards, and decide where studentsshould go for “RTI block”. Our student reading levels have managed to meet district and campus goals because our teachers ensure that their discussions are focused on the 4 critical questions of PLC.
According to state assessment data presented above we have demonstrated growth despite challenges we have faced. Working collaboratively and ensuring quick response to student needs via “response to intervention” we have been able to close achievement gaps and grow one another as a team on campus.
Our STAAR assessment measures three Domains . Domain 1 is Student Achievement, Domain 2 is School progress , and domain 3 is Closing the Gaps. As you can see from the data presented , in Domain 1 in 2018-2019 we were rated a “D”. In Domain 2 and 3 we were rated an F leading us to an overall campus rating of a D.
In 2019, 2020 we did not receive a rating due to the world wide pandemic. While we did not receive an official rating our Domain 1 did demonstrate some improvement from the 2018-2019 STAAR.
This year, we continued to strengthen our processes to improve student learning. Both vertical and horizontal teams focused on essential standards and honed in on the use of “Response to intervention” block more than ever. We shared students with one another to ensure that the most highly qualified were designing and delivering instruction to the students with the highest need. We ensured that teachers' Tier 1 instruction was on point by unwrapping those priority standards, creating concise learning targets, and assessing students for immediate intervention or enrichment. With the deliberate focus on collaboration , formative assessments, and intervention/enrichment we have seen an increase in student growth which is a “ B” rating.” This is the result of effective planning, collaboration and response to student needs.
In the first attachment you cans see an example of where we tracked campus built assessments focused on essential standards. We had one for each STAAR level grade level. While our district did not have district benchmarks we aligned and used NWEA MAP reading and Math (k-6 NWEA MAP) . For both reading and math Kinder-6th grade only one grade level did not meet their projected growth target (kinder). While we know there is a lot of work to do , to see the observed growth in almost 100% of grade levels was a huge celebration.
We will continue to use the reality assessment of our teams.
- Media Coverage (Newswest9) May 2022 due to Leadership day hosting over 500 people while students demonstrated public speaking skills and student led conferences.
- 2021-2022 Engage2Learn Endorsement for "collaboration and culture of growth."
- Mrs.Nava , 3rd grade teacher received "Rice University STEM camper" award in 2020.
- Ms.Meyer received Academic k12 Summit award as top 10 Teacher (dual language)