Effectiveness of Professional Learning Communities at Gretchko Elementary School Final
Effectiveness of Professional Learning Communities at Gretchko Elementary School Final
Effectiveness of Professional Learning Communities at Gretchko Elementary School Final
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A total of 100% of the teachers felt that collaboration has been implemented a lot in their
PLC.
A total of 100% of the teachers felt the use of common assessments has been
implemented a lot in their PLC.
20
A total of 92.9% of the teachers felt they receive administrative support a lot at their
PLC.
A total of 100% of the teachers felt their PLC analyzes and utilizes data a lot at their
meetings.
A total of 78.6% of teachers felt they are provided sufficient time to hold their PLC
meetings. (Meanwhile, 21.4% felt they are provided some time to hold their meetings.)
A total of 100% of the teachers felt their PLC has been creating SMART goals a lot for
intervention.
Qualitative Data Analysis. The action research team also pulled qualitative data from the
teacher survey in the form of written responses teachers provided when asked two open response
questions. The first question asked them to list strengths of their grade-level PLC. The second
question asked for areas they felt their grade-level PLC could improve.
Strengths of your grade-level PLC. Below, the team has highlighted some of the
strengths teachers responded with on the survey. The complete results of the open response
section from the teacher survey can be found in Appendix C.
Teachers are determined to find ways to help students learn through the use of various
evidence and research-based interventions, and are eager to share with colleagues so that
all students can experience success.
We collaborate efficiently and are able to quickly pinpoint the needs of our students.
We use our Smart Goals to drive our instruction for our small groups and individual
needs, and often this can lead to better whole group instruction. Additionally, we are able
to make great instructional choices earlier in the year based on SMART goal decisions
from the previous year.
21
High level of collaboration and analysis of data. We have worked hard to use multiple
sources of data to implement interventions for students.
Everyone has a role, everyone respects each other, everyone has a common goalto
improve student data!
This time together allows us to collaborate on student learning and discuss common
assessments and other concerns.
Our PLC is very good at collaborating and making informed decisions to guide our
instruction.
Areas of improvement for your grade-level PLC. Below, the team has highlighted some
I believe that we could continue to improve our SMART Goals by focusing on the
smaller steps to (get to) the bigger picture.
I would like to see us leave a few additional minutes to reflect (on) one key area to focus
on for our upcoming agenda for the next week. We always have so many things that need
to be discussed and I would like to see those ideas narrowed down for a deeper
discussion.
We had a lot of SMART goals. There were almost too many small goals to keep track
of. I think broader (big picture) goals would make data collection easier.
More time to work on common assessments and to possibly meet with other grade levels
across the district!
This year we met with K PLC once per month and I would like to continue that!
Have more time to share teaching strategies that are successful within our classroom.
22
Focus on one thing fully and not try to squeeze 2 things in.
Conclusion. The teacher survey data show an abundance of positive teacher perceptions
regarding the operation and effectiveness of the grade-level PLCs at Gretchko Elementary. It
appears they feel the elements of an effective PLC, as stated by DuFour & Eaker (1998), are
present in their grade-level teams. They mentioned many strengths, including: the use of
research-based interventions, utilization of SMART goals, data analysis, a true team atmosphere,
and a common goal of improving student achievement. Their areas of improvement contained
some common themes, such as: focusing their attention on less SMART goals but at a deeper
level, meeting with other grade-level PLCs (across grade levels and/or across the district), and
reserving more time to share instructional strategies. The only area of slight concern found
throughout the survey is the aspect of time. The administrator and/or district may want to look at
how to embed PLCs into their work day in a manner that allows for sufficient time to reach their
team goals, while also tending to their contractual agreement.
Discrepancies. There were no discrepancies found in this data source.
Limitations. The teacher survey includes some limitations. First, the survey was sent
out to all teachers, both kindergarten and first grade. Therefore, the data the team received from
this source were a combination of the two grade levels. Though the survey captured grade level,
allowing a comparison between the two groups, it was not reasonable to compare any possible
discrepancies in the data between grade levels due to the limited number of teachers surveyed.
As a result, the findings are limited to making conclusions about the teachers at Gretchko
Elementary as a whole instead of as separate grade levels. In addition, the conclusions from this
survey are limited to only the kindergarten and first grade teachers at Gretchko Elementary. The
23
Discussed holistically about kids understanding content or not (discuss and use
student data)
Norms displayed on agenda; team prepared and on time; team focused (norms
established, displayed, and followed)
24
Agenda provided, followed, and prepared for the following week (agenda is
created and followed)
Half of group talking with neighbor (on topic, whispered); sidebars occurred a
few times; facilitator brought team back together after about 30 seconds (norms
established, displayed, and followed)
Word Features and end of year math assessment discussed (common assessments
discussed)
Discussed Word Features data; best interventions (discuss and use student data)
Did not appear to have sufficient time to complete agenda items (sufficient time
provided)
25
Got slightly off track with sound-box phonics discussion but got back on track
quickly (agenda is created and followed)
Conclusion. As you can see in the highlighted notes above from the two PLCs
observed, these two grade levels are highly effective, well-oiled machines when it comes to
PLCs. They are very structured and have a focus on student achievement at all times. If they
were not discussing student data, then they were discussing common assessments, SMART
goals, or effective teaching strategies in various curriculum areas. No negativity was apparent,
and team members truly worked as a team. They all had a niche to fill within their groups, and
they filled that role at a high level. All members participated, were engaged, and worked with
the common goal in mindstudent achievement. It is clear that PLCs have been running for
many years in this school. The veteran teachers must be paving the path for the new teachers.
Even the elements not observed, such as following the norms and agenda (i.e. getting off topic a
few times), were quickly corrected by the facilitators. This school is truly made up of
professionals.
Discrepancies. There were no discrepancies found in this data source.
Limitations. The main limitation with this data source is the fact that it was derived
from observations of only two meetingsone kindergarten and one first grade. What occurred
during those two meetings may not be what occurs on a weekly basis. However, after speaking
with the administrator from Gretchko, it appears as though what was observed is a common
occurrence during the PLC meetings. Despite the limited observations, the research team was
still able to gather some useful qualitative data regarding what takes place during the
kindergarten and first grade PLCs. Triangulating this data source with the other data sources
paints a clear picture about the effectiveness of PLCs at Gretchko Elementary.
26
27
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Reader
82% (115)
84% (104)
13% (18)
14% (17)
5% (7)
2% (3)
Writer
83% (99)
80% (106)
14% (17)
16% (21)
3% (3)
4% (6)
Table 2
Perception Data for First Grade Students
I am a good
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Reader
85% (110)
92% (120)
13% (17)
8% (11)
2% (3)
0% (0)
Writer
82% (109)
81% (106)
16% (22)
18% (24)
2% (2)
1% (1)
28
29
Kindergarten
First Grade
Fall 2014
% At or
% Below
Above Grade
Grade Level
Level
56% (118)
44% (92)
75% (141)
25% (47)
Spring 2015
% At or
% Below
Above Grade
Grade Level
Level
85% (179)
15% (31)
94% (178)
6% (10)
The table above exemplifies the tremendous work that the teachers at Gretchko
Elementary have been doing with their students. Over the course of one academic year, the
kindergarten students went from 56% being at or above grade level in reading to 85% - a growth
of 29%. The first grade students went from 75% being at or above grade level to 94% - a growth
of 19%. Additionally, when looking at the entry point for kindergartners (56% at or above grade
level) compared to the exit point for first graders (94% at or above grade level), a growth is
indicated of nearly 40% during their tenure at Gretchko. This represents incredible student
achievement in reading. The PLCs will want to continue focusing their attention on those
30
31
Pre-Assessment (September)
Post-Assessment (March)
Advanced (4)
0% (0)
8% (17)
Proficient (3)
0% (0)
70% (147)
2% (4)
21% (44)
98% (206)
1% (2)
32
Pre-Assessment (September)
Post-Assessment (March)
Advanced (4)
0% (0)
10% (19)
Proficient (3)
4% (7)
75% (141)
36% (68)
14% (26)
60% (113)
1% (2)
The data above and on the previous page show a clear sign of growth in student
achievement due to quality instruction and the implementation of interventions for struggling
students. This is especially represented in the Not Proficient category. A total of 98% of
kindergarten students were not proficient prior to instruction; however, only 1% remained at this
level after the instruction! The same holds true for first grade, where 60% of students were
considered Not Proficient at the start of the year (lower than kindergarten due to the fact that
they received instruction during the prior year), but only 1% were found Not Proficient following
the instruction. This is significant growth in writing achievement.
Considering Advanced and Proficient as positive indicators and Partially Proficient and
Not Proficient as negative indicators, interesting results are found. For example, in kindergarten,
they started the year with 0% of students in the positive range and 100% in the negative range.
In March, those numbers grew to 78% of students in the positive range and 22% in the negative
range. Similarly, in first grade, they began the year with 4% of students in the positive range and
96% in the negative range. In March, those numbers grew to 85% of students scoring in the
positive range and 15% scoring in the negative range. This indicates remarkable growth.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Newmann, F.M., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public
and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison,
WI: The Center.
Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing
grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental
study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal. 46, No. 4, 1007.
Schroeder, D. (2009). The relationship between elementary schools development as
professional learning communities and students achievement as measured by
Californias academic performance index. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Section
1323, p. 1.
Smith, K. (2010). The relationship between professional learning communities and student
achievement. ProQuest Dissertation Publishing, Section 0543, p. 1.
40
41
42
Kindergarten
First Grade
A lot
Some
Little
A lot
Some
Little
A lot
Some
Little
Other:
A lot
Some
Little
A lot
Some
Little
A lot
Some
Little
43
Norms
High level of collaboration and analysis of data. We have worked hard to use multiple
sources of data to implement interventions for students
We collaborate efficiently and are able to quickly pinpoint the needs of our students. We
use our Smart Goals to drive our instruction for our small groups, individual needs and
often this can lead to better whole group instruction. Additionally, we are able to make
great instructional choices earlier in the year based on SMART goal decisions from the
previous year.
Everyone has a role, everyone respects each other, everyone has a common goal, to
improve student data!
Analyzing data.
Teachers are determined to find ways to help students learn through the use of various
evidence and research based interventions and are eager to share with colleagues so that
all could students experience success.
Every "K" teacher comes to each PLC with a purpose, a set agenda and looks to
accomplish the agenda. Focused conversations; honest, trustworthy collaboration; sharing
of ideas
Our PLC is very good at collaborating and making informed decision to guide our
instruction.
2. Please list one or more areas where you would like to see your grade-level PLC improve.
(N=14)
44
Have more time to share teaching strategies that are successful within our classroom.
I would like to see us leave a few additional minutes to reflect one key area to focus on
for our upcoming agenda for the next week. We always have so many things that need to
be discussed and I would like to see those ideas narrowed down for a deeper discussion.
This year we met with K PLC once per month and I would like to continue that!
More time to work on common assessments and to possibly meet with other grade levels
across the district!
I believe that we could continue to improve our SMART Goals by focusing on the
smaller steps to the bigger picture, this year we broke down the end goal into smaller
steps and I think we should really embrace this to support our learners
We had a lot of SMART goals. There were almost too many small goals to keep track of.
I think broader (big picture) goals would make data collection easier.
SMART goals. At this level it can be difficult to determine appropriate goals. At times
we put the cart before the horse.
45
46
47
48
50%
40%
Neutral
30%
Negative
20%
10%
0%
Reading (Fall)
Reading
(Spring)
Positive
50%
Neutral
40%
Negative
30%
20%
10%
0%
Reading (Fall)
Reading (Spring)
Writing (Fall)
Writing (Spring)
49
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Kindergarten Kindergarten
(Fall)
(Spring)
First Grade
(Fall)
First Grade
(Spring)
50
Pre-Assessment (September)
40%
Post-Assessment (March)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Advanced (4) Proficient (3)
Partially
Not Proficient
Proficient (2)
(1)
Pre-Assessment (September)
40%
Post-Assessment (March)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Advanced (4) Proficient (3)
Partially
Not Proficient
Proficient (2)
(1)
51