Building a Professional Learning in
Inver Grove Heights Schools
November 1, 2012
Susan Huff
susan.huff@nebo.edu
Transforming a school to a
professional learning
community is a journey that
takes time and effort.
Three objectives:
• Review the big picture of a
professional learning community
• Confirm great things happening at
your individual schools
• Look for areas of growth
Norms for Us
•
•
•
•
Listen to learn and apply
Participate fully
Paraphrase, clarify
Focus--pay attention to signal
What is a PLC?
“Educators committed to working
collaboratively in ongoing processes of
collective inquiry and action research in order
to achieve better results for the students they
serve. PLC’s operate under the assumption
that the key to improved learning for students
is continuous, job-embedded learning for
educators.”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006)
Why PLCs?
“Throughout our ten-year study,
whenever we found an effective school
or an effective department within a
school, without exception that school or
department has been a part of a
collaborative professional learning
community.” (Milbrey McLaughlin)
3 Big Ideas of PLC
• Unwavering focus on student
learning
• Collaborative teaming
• A results orientation
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998)
Four Crucial Questions:
(DuFour, 2006)
• What do we want each student to learn?
• How we will know when each student has
learned it?
• How will we respond when a student
experiences difficulty in learning?
• How can we enrich and extend their learning
when they already know it?
In a professional learning community
the focus shifts from ensuring that
students are taught to ensuring that
students learn.
(Bryk et al., 1999; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Hord 1997; Louis et al., 1996)
A professional learning community is
dependent upon a culture of
collaboration, where teachers must have
embedded time for frequent, structured
collaboration among teachers on the same
grade level or teaching the same content.
(DuFour, 2007)
Focus on results:
• Goal and results orientation
• Common assessments that hold all
students to a common standard
• Data-based decision making
• Formative and summative assessments
• Collective reflection on current reality
“There is clear consensus among leading
educational researchers as to the best practices
for improving schools. When staff work
together as a professional learning community–
when they work together to clarify purpose and
priorities, establish and contribute to
collaborative teams, participate in continuous
improvement cycles of gathering data on
student achievement, identify areas of concern,
generate strategies for improving students’
performance . . .
. . . support each other as they implement
those strategies, and gather new data to
assess the impact of their collective efforts–
and when they are relentless in their efforts to
improve achievement for all students, they
increase the likelihood of sustained,
substantive school improvement. The
research is clear and compelling on this point.”
(DuFour, 2003)
Nebo’s Non-Negotiables
for all schools . . . all teams
•
•
•
•
Team Norms
“I Can” Statements for Student Learning
Common Curriculum Map
Common Formative Assessment for Each
“I Can” Statement
• Data Assessment
• SMART Goals
Here’s what . . . why . . . how. . .
•
•
•
•
•
Essential concepts / common curriculum
Common assessments
Collaboration
Data analysis
SMART Goals
Module 1
Essential Concepts
&
Common Curriculum
Focus on
Learning
1. What do students need to learn?
2. How do we know they know it?
3. What are we going to do if they don’t get it?
4. What are we going to do if they already know it?
Focus on
Results
Collaborative
Culture
Here’s what . . .
“What knowledge, skills, and dispositions
should each student acquire as a result of this
course and each unit of instruction within this
course?”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, p. 43)
-a guaranteed and viable curriculum-
Here’s why . . .
As teachers assume collective
responsibility for student
learning, what unites them is a
common curriculum.
(Lee, Smith, & Croninger,1995)
Here’s why . . .
A common curriculum eliminates the
instructional lottery that results
when teachers are free to teach
whatever they desire.
(McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001)
Here’s why . . .
Without a common curriculum, any
individual student’s chance of
receiving standards based curriculum
depends on which teacher he draws
in the lottery of class or teacher
assignments.
(McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001)
Here’s how . . .
Understanding By Design (UbD)
1. Identify desired results.
(What do we want students to know and be able to do? Standards . . .
Outcomes)
2. Determine acceptable evidence.
(Assessment)
3. Plan learning experiences and instruction.
(Design lessons)
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)
Marzano:
• Intended Curriculum
– State standards
– District curriculum adoptions
• Implemented Curriculum
– Curriculum taught by teacher
• Attained Curriculum
– Curriculum learned by the
student
Criteria for Identifying
Essential Common Outcomes
• ENDURANCE –
– are students expected to retain the skills/knowledge long
after the test is completed
• LEVERAGE –
– is this skill/knowledge applicable to many academic
disciplines
• READINESS FOR THE NEXT LEVEL OF LEARNING –
– is this skill/knowledge preparing the student for success
in the next grade/course
(Reeves, 2005)
Protocol to Clarify & Address Priority Standards
(Erkens, 2012)
1. Examine all of your state standards.
2. Deconstruct standards for team clarity.
3. Identify your power standards using three
criteria: endurance, leverage, readiness.
4. Reach team consensus on power standards.
5. Document standards, including recorded
numbers and letters of selected standards.
6. Check for vertical alignment and sequence
standards.
7. Identify targets within standards.
8. Design assessments to align.
9. Identify curriculum materials to support
required learning, to address standards, and
to help learners be successful on
assessments.
10. Identify instructional strategies that will
best help you teach the curriculum.
Module 2
Common Assessments
Focus on
Learning
1. What do students need to learn?
2. How do we know they know it?
3. What are we going to do if they don’t get
it?
4. What are we going to do if they already
know it?
Focus on
Results
Collaborative
Culture
Here’s what . . .
Common ongoing formative team-made
assessments made from multiple sources
given by a team of teachers with the intention
of collaboratively examining the results for
• shared learning
• instructional planning for individual students
• curriculum, instruction, and/or assessment
modifications
Here’s why . . .
Team-developed common assessments:
• Are more efficient.
• Promote equity.
• Monitor and improve student learning.
• Inform and improve the practice of individual
teachers and teams of teachers.
• Build team capacity to achieve at higher levels.
• Are essential to systematic interventions when
students do not learn. (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, 2008)
Here’s why . . .
Team-developed common assessments:
• Increase accuracy and reliability.
• Promote continued development of
assessment literacy for teachers.
• Increase collective efficacy.
(Cassandra Erkens)
Formative vs. Summative
It isn’t the method that determines whether
the assessment is summative or formative, it
is how the results are used.
Here’s how . . . to write CAs
• Teacher teams write new assessments based
on standards.
• Teams use multiple sources for assessment
items (parts of textbook assessments, parts of
computer test item pools, as appropriate).
• Teams revise assessments for future use as
they evaluate their effectiveness.
Sample common assessment – usually about 10 questions.
Name ______________
Write the number sentence you would use to solve the problem.
1. Kelsy went to the store and bought 56 pencils. She broke 20 of them. How many
did she have left?
2. In the park there were 7 trees. Each tree had 4 branches. How many branches did
the trees have in all?
3. Mr. Fox has 5 tables in his room. 3 students sit at each table. How many students
does Mr. Fox have in all?
4. Pete bought 14 mice at the pet store to feed his snake. He went back and bought 9
more. How many mice did Pete buy altogether?
5. We learned 18 cursive letters before Christmas and 22 after. How many cursive
letters have we learned in all?
Teamwork
before and after
common
assessments
Process for Common Assessments
Create a plan for
appropriate
interventions.
Establish team
norms for
collaboration.
Identify 8–10
big ideas per
semester.
Tally and review
common
assessment
results.
Monitor for
learning of
individual and
collective results.
Revise
curriculum,
instruction, and
assessments as
needed.
Examine school
data and
establish
SMART goals.
Create a road
map of CAs and
targets.
Monitor
progress on
SMART goals.
Provide
instruction
and ongoing
assessment.
Assess again—
monitoring for
results.
Repeat
intervention loop
as needed.
Provide
instruction
and ongoing
assessment.
Identify the
targets of the
assessments
Design formative
and summative
assessments.
 Erkens
1
1
Here’s how . . . to use CAs
Seek evidence of student learning:
• What does this student work tell us about
what students know and can do?
• What does this student work tell us about
what students are still missing?
• What indicators, if any, offer insight into
student misconceptions and highlight
potential intervention strategies?
Common Assessments Reflections
1. Discuss the assessment task with team.
2. Examine data and identify areas for team
discussion.
-As a team: Which learning targets from the
assessment require more attention?
-As a team: Which students require additional
support?
-As an individual teacher: Which area was my
lowest, and how can I improve?
-As a team or individual: Which students did
not master which targets?
3. What is your team’s plan of action to address
results?
Module 3
Collaboration
Here’s what . . .
Collaboration Defined
A systematic process in which we
work together, interdependently, to
analyze and impact professional
practice in order to improve our
individual and collective results.
(DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2007)
What is a team?
“A group of people working
interdependently toward a
common goal for which members
are mutually accountable.”
(DuFour, 2007)
Here’s why . . .
Improving schools requires
collaborative cultures. Without
collaborative skills and relationships,
it is not possible to learn and to
continue to learn as much as you
need to know to improve. (Michael Fullan)
Here’s why . . .
Creating a collaborative culture is the
single most important factor for
successful school improvement initiatives
and the first order of business for those
seeking to enhance the effectiveness of
their schools. (Eastwood & Lewis)
Here’s why . . .
Enhanced teaching and
learning result through
collaboration.
(Peterson, McCarthey, & Elmore, 1995; Fullan, 1993; McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2001; Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994, Bryk; Camburn, & Louis, 1999;
Newmann, 1994; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Lee, Smith, & Croninger,
1995; Sebring, Bryk, Easton, Luppescu, Thum, Lopez, & Smith, 1995;
Shellard, 2004)
Here’s how: create teams
“The best team structure is simple:
a team of teachers who teach the
same course or grade level.”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, p. 93)
Here’s how . . .
Make Teams Effective
• Embed collaboration in routine practices of
the school with focus on learning.
• Time for collaboration is built into the school
day and school calendar.
• Products of collaboration are made explicit.
(More Keys to Effective Teams)
• Team norms guide collaboration.
• Teams focus on key questions.
• Teams pursue specific and measurable
performance goals.
• Teams have access to relevant information.
(DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker)
Here’s how . . .
Structure time for the work of
collaborative teams.
(see Simple Ways Schools Find
Time to Work Together)
Here’s how . . .
Focus on the right things
“The fact that teachers collaborate will
do nothing to improve a school. The
pertinent question is not, ‘Are they
collaborating?’ but rather, ‘What are they
collaborating about?’”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, p. 91)
Unfocused Collaboration . . .
• May be instruments for preserving the status
quo, inhibiting analysis and innovation.
• May mutually reinforce poorly formed habits.
• May force teachers to consider beliefs and
practices based on bad practice.
• May be about storytelling—mostly complaint.
(Little, 1990)
•
•
•
•
The 4 Crucial Questions focus collaboration
on the right things:
What is it we want our students to learn?
How will we know if each student has learned
it?
How will we respond when some students do
not learn it?
How can we extend and enrich the learning
for students who have demonstrated
proficiency?
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006)
Structural Conditions
• Time to Meet
• Team Norms
• Team Focus
• Team Accountability
(see Collaboration Agenda and Leader/Scribe Assignments)
Team collaboration binder
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Team Norms
Facilitator/Scribe Assignments
Team’s Daily Schedule
Collaboration Agenda (one for each week’s
collaboration)
Curriculum Maps
Essential Learning Outcomes (or Power
Standards)
Copy of Core Curriculum
Copies of Team’s Common Assessments
A focus on learning
With collaborative teams.
Results orientation
They’re our school’s dreams.
We intervene early
With more time and support.
There’s curriculum mapping
On which we consort.
Teams’ common assessments
Every student will take.
We analyze data,
Then decisions we make.
A focus on learning.
You’re on a great team.
Results orientation—
It’s not just a dream!
Module 4
Collaborative
Data Analysis
Here’s what . . .
• To change data to information, we
need a basis of comparison.
• Data must be easily accessible.
• Data must be openly shared.
(DuFour, Dufour, & Eaker)
Here’s what . . .
Sources of data PLCs use:
• Assessment data
Standardized tests (knowledge check-up, G/T
identification; compare to other schools in
the nation)
Criterion-referenced tests
Unit tests / quizzes / assignments
Ongoing assessments / running records
Rubrics tied to student work or product
• Perception data
Opinion surveys, needs surveys; indicators of
school quality survey
• Statistical data
SES, ESL, mobility, ethnicity, attendance &
punctuality, office referrals & discipline,
graduation rates
Here’s why . . .
Collaboratively examining student work
promotes collective responsibility for
student learning.
(Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003; Dearman & Alber, 2005)
Here’s why . . .
When teachers engage in this collaborative
activity, they must agree on common
proficiency standards for student work. This
reduces variation among teachers about
whether student work meets the standard.
(Langer, Colton, & Goff, 2003)
Here’s how . . .
we do it at Spanish Oaks
1. Teachers identify a target learning area.
2. Teachers determine standards that will be
taught.
3. Teachers select or design a common
assessment to measure mastery of that
standard and a pre-assessment.
4. Teachers give pre-assessment and group
students for more time and support.
5. Teachers then share instructional materials
and collaborate on best practices to teach
the concept.
6. At the end of the agreed upon instructional
period, each teacher gives the common
assessment within the same window of
time.
7. The assessment results are then brought to
the team for analysis.
8. The group makes a plan to help each student
improve who has not yet met the standard.
Concept: 2-digit Multiplication with a 2-digit Multiplier
Student
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Class1
10
10
9
8
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
9
Class 2
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
Class 3
10
10
9
8
7
7
9
9
8
7
7
10
10
10
9
9
9
Class 4
10
10
9
6
9
7
10
10
6
9
10
7
8
10
10
Ave
9.7
9.8
8.7
8.7
Concept: 2-digit Multiplication with a 2-digit Multiplier
Mr. Jones
Miss Ruiz
Mrs. Smith
Mr. Terry
Reteach
Practice/Enrich
Rene (8)
Enrich
1. Rebecca
10 1. Rodney
10 1. Luis
10 1. Alex
10
Brian
Cindy
2. John
10 2. Rebecca
10 2. Tom
10 2. Jack
10
Katelyn Melissa (8)
Samantha
3. Jose
9 3. George
10 3. Sydney
9 3. Luke
9
Lydia
Ryan C. (8)
Trudy
4. Rene
8 4. Melissa
8 4. Ryan C.
8 4. Lauren
6
Brent
Marisa (8)
Walter
Natalie (8)
Lucky
5. Joshua
10 5. Angelica
10 5. Brian
7 5. Beverly
9
Lauren
6. Helen
10 6. Edgar
10 6. Katelyn
7 6. Will
7
Will
Rodney
Randy
7. Antonio
10 7. Eduardo
10 7. Sam
9 7. Max
10
Jessica
Rebecca
Alex
8. Oliver
9 8. Simone
10 8. Jared
9 8. Christian
10
Liz
George
Jack
9. Libby
10 9. Elizabeth
10 9. Marisa
8 9. Jessica
6
Angelica
Luke
10. Kaitlyn
10 10. Trent
10 10. Lydia
7 10. Ben
9
Edgar
Beverly
10 11. Brent
7 11. Rachel O
10
Eduardo
Max
11. Tim
9 11. Ryan H.
12. Roger
10 12. Cindy
10 12. Gina
10 12. Liz
7
Simone
Christian
13. Wendy
10 13. Samantha
10 13. Lexie
10 13. Natalie
8
Elizabeth
Ben
14. Marisole
10 14. Trudy
10 14. Carter
10 14. Camille
10
Trent
Rachel O.
15. Andrew
10 15. Walter
10 15. Wyatt
9 15. Alisa
10
Ryan H.
Camille
16. Rachel T
10 16. Lucky
10 16. Nicole
9
17. Georgia
9 17. Randy
9 17. Maggie
Alisa
+ Jones’ class
9
+ Smith’s class
Teacher
Average
9.7
9.8
8.7
8.7
Ruiz
Jones
Smith
Power Standards / ELOs
1. Endurance
2. Leverage
3. Essential for the next level of instruction.
(Reeves, 2005)
Keys to Formative Assessment
• “Is it used to identify students who are
experiencing difficulty in their learning?
• Are students who are having difficulty
provided with additional time and support for
learning?
• Are students given an additional opportunity
to demonstrate their learning?”
(DuFour keynote at PLC Institutes 2007, p. 80)
Module 5
SMART Goals
SMART Goals contribute to a results
orientation.
• Strategic and specific
• Measurable
• Attainable
• Results-oriented
• Time-bound
(O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006)
Here’s what . . .
“Strategic goals are linked to strategic priorities
that are part of a larger vision of success for
the entire school district.
Strategic and specific means that these goals
will have both broad-based and long-term
impact because they are focused on the
specific needs of the students for whom the
goal is intended.”
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002, p. 4)
Here’s what . . .
“Measurable means being able to know
whether actions made the kind of difference
we wanted: being able to measure a change
in results because of those actions.”
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002, p. 5)
Here’s what . . .
Attainable means a goal is within the realm of
our influence of control, and doable given
current resources.
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002)
Here’s what . . .
Results-oriented means goals are aimed at
specific outcomes that can be measured or
observed. They define what is expected and a
desired end point.
• student achievement
• % of students who improve
• learning that can be defined and measured
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002)
Here’s what . . .
Time-bound means agreeing on a time frame for
achieving the goal to keep it a priority and
give it some urgency.
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002)
Here’s why . . .
Goals represent measurable
commitments that can be used to assess
progress toward the vision.
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998)
Here’s why . . .
“SMART goals help us monitor which of our
efforts are making a difference and by how
much.”
(Conzemius & O’Neill, 2002, p. 5)
Here’s why . . .
When we establish clear learning goals, the
effect on student achievement can be as much
as a 41 percentile gain.
(Marzano, What Works in Schools, 2003)
Here’s how . . .
Tips for Writing Goals
• Goals should be clearly linked to the vision.
• Goals should be limited in number (five or
fewer) to ensure focus.
• Goals should focus on the desired outcome
rather than on the means to achieve the
outcome. (DuFour & Eaker, 2007)
Here’s how . . .
Ask broad questions . . .
• In which areas of our tests were our students
weakest?
• What patterns do we see in the data?
• What does disaggregated data tell us about
our subpopulations (ethnicity, poverty, special
education)?
Is this a SMART goal?
All the students in our grade level will
demonstrate mastery of math facts.
Students will leave first grade with a love
of learning and a desire to become a
productive citizen.
Ninety-five percent of the students within
our team will read on grade level as
measured by our district benchmark
reading assessment by May 2013.
allthingsplc.info
Check out my Google Site
https://sites.google.com/
a/nebo.edu/susan-huff