- School District: Irving ISD
- School Address: 3601 Cheyenne , Irving, TX 75062, US
- School Phone: 9726003300
- Principal: Alberto Zavala
- Contact E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Number of Students: 700
- Percent Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch: 93%
- Percent of Limited English Proficient: 77%
- Percent of Special Education: 7%
- White: 3%
- Black: 2%
- Hispanic: 93%
- Asian: 0%
- Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: 1%
- American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.5%
- Multiracial: 0%
- Other: 0.5%
In May of 2018, John R. Good received its state assessment results for the 2017-2018 school year. It was to receive an F rating and become Improvement Required by the Texas Education Agency. Making matters worse, it was also going to be labeled a Comprehensive campus because it ranked in the bottom 5% in the state for closing achievement gaps and low student growth.
Having been part of the new administration that joined the John. R. Good family in June of 2018, we quickly realized that the culture at Good was second to none. The staff treated each other like family. They cared for one another and ensured that the children were loved. The only thing missing was the true work it takes to function as a PLC.
The first step was create John R. Good’s Guiding Coalition. Knowing that the foundation of an effective PLC lies within the four pillars, the guiding coalition came together to find clarity in it's collective purpose and what they were prepared to do in order to accomplish and attain it. Having come together and established their purpose, they guided the rest of the faculty in this endeavor. Collectively they came up with would be become John R. Good’s mission, vision, shared values, and goals. The mission and vision is now recited daily as part of our morning broadcast announcements as well as revisted during faculty meetings when teachers are asked to write on a sticky note how they have helped support the school's mission and vision within the past month
The next step for the guiding coalition was to target where changes were needed. They began the process of conducting a needs assessment utilizing the 3 Big Ideas of a PLC as the driving force: Focus on Learning; Building a Collaborative Culture; Focus on Results. Through this process the team identified that the biggest obstacle they were facing was building a true collaborative culture and a focus on results.
In years prior, John R. Good had already started it’s PLC journey and created systems that allowed teachers to meet in collaborative teams. However, what had taken place during these team times was the opposite of what it means to take collective responsibility and work together to establish a guaranteed and viable curriculum. Due to Good’s performance decline over previous years, district coaches had taken over their collaborative team times and isolated the development of what students were to learn and how they were to be assessed. Albeit done with the best of intentions, teachers felt they no longer had a voice in the planning process.
To address that issue teacher teams developed norms that fostered the expectations of working within a collaborative team: to achieve a common goal; The TEAM establishes what students will learn NOT an individual; develop assessments to gather data; intervene and extend as needed.
These norms were shared with all support staff that took part in their collaborative team time making sure that everyone shared the same common goal and understanding. In many instances, district coaches took part in the development of those norms. From this point forward true collaboration started to take form.
In 2018-2019 John R. Good went from a 55 TEA rating to an 83 with a distinction in academic growth.
In 2021-2022 John R. Good went from a 83 rating to an 85 with a distinction in academic growth.
You can not attribute the success of our campus on one adjustment. Many changes that have taken place at John R. Good have proved beneficial. However, most of the success that was accomplished in one year can attributed to the power that comes from working together as a campus PLC and the belief that together students will achieve.
1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.
Several systems were put in place four years ago that support our monitoring of student learning as an ongoing process every week. These systems continue today with minor adjustments made along our PLC journey.
Development and Creation of Essential Standards
At the end of each school year our guiding coalition meets for two days to plan for the following school year based on data and survey results of the current school year. One of the items to review are our essential standards. They make adjustments to which standards we target based on end-of-year data. This sets the foundation for all future planning. Teams will use these essential standards to create their common formative assessments or exit tickets. Teams will also use these essential standards to create their beginning of the year diagnostic for both reading and math. This diagnostic then becomes the driving force for our small group lesson plans.
Collaborative Team and Student Learning
Before the school year starts, grade level teams meet to develop their norms and develop SMART goals for both our state assessments and district assessments. They then create their collaborative team time agenda that includes the norms they created and expectations from each contributing member.
They come together every Thursday for collaborative team time. This time time is sacred and dedicated for teams to go through the four critical questions of a PLC:
- What do we want all students to know and be able to do?
- How will we know if they learn it?
- How will we respond when some students do not learn?
- How will we extend the learning for students who are already proficient?
As part of their collaborative team agenda, all teams are expected to review student data to start the team time. This ensures that student learning is being monitored at all times. However this depends on the team's pacing guide. There may times when no formative assessment is available. If so, they may be focused on different aspects of the 4 questions. Some teams may working through question 1 while other teams will be look into reteach material for those who didn't learn the material. They then link this analysis back to their beginning of the year diagnostic and make notes in their data trackers when students have mastered a skill they missed on the diagnostic.
As a result of these meetings teams will have created either student learning for the following week, reteach material, or extensions for those who demonstrated mastery.
Collaborative Team Time for Specials Team
Starting in 2020-2021 Good's specials team began the process of incorporating other content area vocabulary into their lessons. When they meet for collaborative team they review the upcoming lessons for reading or math for all grade levels and then teach those terms within their lessons.
2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.
Good's Good Time Intervention
Another major adjustment that was made 4 years ago was the school's master schedule. The guiding coalition realized that there was no dedicated time on the master schedule for RTI and small group instruction. They felt it was extremely important that if we wanted to be intentional about closing gaps we needed to be intentional about the time we provide Tier 3 and small group instruction.
The first step was to identify and note on the master schedule the small group instruction blocks for every grade level for both reading and math. Nothing else was to be taking place during these times except targeted small group instruction.
We then established and listed on the master schedule "Good Times", our school's RTI time. For the last hour of the day all non-classroom staff push into classrooms to provide targted instruction for Tier 3 students. This included our fine arts and P.E. teachers. This provided us approximately 20 people to send accross campus to help and support.
For grades 3rd-5th, identified students reported to the cafeteria to work with their tutor. Not only did this approach target specific students on specific skills, it also communicated to the entire staff that collectively we would help improve student learning.
Our master schedule is also designed so that our instructional support staff provide push-in support to teachers during their small group or guided reading blocks.
3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.
Another system that was put in place 4 years ago was our school's DDI process. Every two weeks teams must meet with admin to share out two weeks worth of data along with their analysis of that data utilizing the SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) matrix. This matrix was designed so that it ecompasses the same components from a PLC DDI meeting.
During the Strenghts and Weaknesses portion teachers must touch upon the following items:
Reflection on Previous DDI Meeting:● How did previous action steps work? What needs to continue? What needs to be changed?
Data Analyzed: Celebration(s):● What is going well?
Places for Improvement:● What areas were shown to be in need of improvement?
Trend to address:● Of these needs, what 1 specific area will we address?
Reflection: ● What is the reason for the trend? ● How do you know this (assessment data)?
During the Opportunities section of our DDI teachers must provide the plan which includes several of the topics below. It is during this time that teachers also get to request help/support/development, schedule observations and modeling lessons that directly tie into a weakness they are experiencing in their instruction.
Action Steps: ● Who is going to do what? ● When and where will the strategies be implemented? ● Who will be impacted by these strategies? ● How will you assess your action?
The Threats component of SWOT ties into the DDI protocol below.
Department/Building Goal Reflection: ● How will this impact your department goal and our building goals?
It is through our SWOT analysis that teachers are able to share out what they are doing well and where the gaps are. As they share out these weaknesses or strenghts, it gives their colleagues the chance to provide support or request support from somone who demonstrated a strength. This is also when we invite district coaches to come and provide insight on other methods to teach a lesson.
Integrated into the "Opportunities" section of SWOT teachers can request prescriptive trainings they'd like to attend based on data. It can range from classroom management to trainings like Accelerate to Educate that my teams requested this past year.
Good Time Planning
This is an extra hour of planning that is provided to teachers every two weeks so that they focus solely on the unpacking of standards and the creation of their CFA's. This approach as proven to be very effecitive as evidence by our strong increases in our districts universal screener MAP. Pandemic data aside, our campus has demonstrated tremendous growth compared to the year it went Improvement Required.
Achievement Data Files
Additional Achievement Data
|2021-2022 vs 2017-2018 MAP Met Growth Targets Comparison|
|5th Math Met Growth Targets|
|5th Reading Met Growth Targets|
|4th Math Met Growth Targets|
|4th Reading Met Growth Targets|
|3rd Math Met Growth Targets|
|3rd Reading Met Growth Targets|
|2nd Math Met Growth Targets|
Increase in Texas Education Agency Ratings:
2017-2018 - 55 F Rating Improvement Required and Comprehensive for have a 43% Closing Gaps rating bottom 5% in the state.
2018-2019 - 83 B Rating Recognized with a Distinction in Academic Growth and removed from the states Improvement Required list
2018-2019 - Closing Gaps rating increase from 43 to 77
2021-2022 - 85 Rating Recognized with a Distinction in Academic Growth
2021-2022 - Removed from the States 2year Comprehensive List for being in bottom 5% in the state for Closing Gaps 43% to 74%.