Running Head: THE EVALUATION OF PLC AT GILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

A report submitted by the 2016 Evaluation Team

Katie Jeffrey, Sebrina Shields and Airess Stewart

EA 747

Lindson Feun, PH.D.

Oakland University

May, 2018
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Chapter 1

Introduction

The curricular demands of implementing the Core Standards can be overwhelming for teachers.

Robert J. Marzano, leading educational researcher, has stated that it would take 22 years of education for

teachers to cover all the content with students. Teachers also identify priorities within the Common Core

Standards, develop assessments to see if the students have mastered concepts, and ensure that they

prepared to advance to the next level. Furthermore, Dufour et al. states “The fundamental purpose of the

school is to ensure that all students learn at high levels.” (P. 11, Learning by Doing, Third Edition).

Teachers are also expected to teach students with fidelity and rigor, and in most cases their performance

evaluations are dependent on how well students perform. One methodology that many districts are using

to accomplish improving student achievement and supporting teacher performance is to work

collaboratively in Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s).

The Professional Learning Community (PLC) is a “continuous, on-going process in which

educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve

better results for the students they serve.” (P. 10, Learning by Doing, Third Edition, Dufour et. al). There

are three big ideas that drive the work of the PLC process: a focus on learning, a collaborative culture

and collective responsibility with a results-orientation. It is through this lens in which we will evaluate a

local elementary school’s PLC’s plan of action.

Gill Elementary is one of nine elementary schools in Farmington Public Schools with

approximately 500 students. The school receives Title I funding because approximately 25% of the

student population receives free and reduced lunch. Despite additional academic support staff through

this funding, the school test scores continued to show limited student growth. To increase student growth,

the principal and 4 additional staff started Gill on their PLC journey in 2014, following summer training.

This team will be referred to as the “guiding coalition”, whose purpose was to build shared knowledge

and leadership for the PLC process. After obtaining key concepts and methods from the training, this
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

guiding coalition identified needs based on the 3 big ideas as described by Dufour to identify a

professional development plan for the 2014-15 school year.

The first part of the process was to build awareness of the PLC process and to develop a mission

and vision with the staff. As awareness grew, the principal made a commitment to send four additional

staff to PLC training the following summer. These additional staff members joined the guiding coalition

and assisted in the development of a 2015-16 professional development plan for PLC.

A clearly articulated vision was developed by staff in August 2015, and commitments were

aligned to the PLC process. The coalition identified the next step in the process to build a structure that

ensures all students learn at high levels. This included embedded time in the school day for teacher

collaboration supported by the principal through assemblies on a bi-weekly basis. An outline was created

for grade level collaborative team meetings with the four guiding questions:

1. What do we expect our students to learn?

2. How will we know what they learned?

3. How will we respond when they don’t learn?

4. How will we respond if they already know it?

The guiding coalition created an instructional support block of time was set aside for grades first

through fourth at least three times a week for at least 45 minutes in math. Math was the identified area of

need for the entire school due to low test score data from the NWEA. Because of the data, the staff

began to identify essential skills and common assessments to narrow their focus on student expectations

for learning.

This is the third year Gill has implemented the PLC process. Currently, half of the staff has

attended a formal training during the summer and there is more interest in returning the following year.

Teachers who have attended are expected to share their learning with staff and assist in creating the action

plan to build on implementation for the following year.

The successes at Gill have sparked interest at district level, and additional money has been set

aside for training for additional schools to attend last summer. PLC is now one of the primary focuses at
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

the district level with an emphasis on the meeting structure and implementation of the instructional

support time at all schools. At the elementary level, the focus in 2016-17 is on reading with the

expectation of 3-5 days a week for 45-60 minutes. Gill is being used as an example for other buildings

through increased test scores and teacher visits.

To evaluate the attitudes of efficient and effective implementation of PLC’s at Gill, the following

research questions were the focus of our research and evaluation:

Evaluation/Research Questions

1. To what extent do administrators foster the school to a culture of collaboration?

2. To what extent do teachers’ attitudes impact PLC?

3. How effective is the PLC process in improving student achievement?

Assumptions and Limitations

An assumption made by this team, is that an increase or decrease in NWEA student achievement

is highly correlated to PLC effectiveness. Before the study began, the administrator has already started

gathering data on program effectiveness to help inform her work in the building. At that time, she had a

grade level that demonstrated growth in the NWEA teacher quadrant data from fall 2014 to spring 2015.

Since the team is composed of the same teachers, there is an assumption that this PLC will continue to

have high growth. There is also an assumption that all grade level teams will demonstrate higher growth

in reading because of the weekly additional time dedicated for collaborative teams and instructional

support time focus in reading.

One of the limitations this team had was the evaluation only occurring in one building. This

limited the ability to compare schools with similar schools. Without a larger scale approach, it is difficult

to know how the data of other schools implementing PLCs compares to Gill. In addition, it is often

difficult to isolate what actual program, strategy or other variables such as individual teacher

effectiveness positively correlates to overall student achievement.

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Definitions

NWEA: stands for Northwest Evaluation Association. NWEA® is a research-based, not-for-profit

organization that supports students and educators worldwide by creating assessment solutions that

precisely measure growth and proficiency—and provide insights to help tailor instruction. (reference

nwea.org)

RIT: When students finish the NWEA MAP Growth test, they receive a number called a RIT score for

each test area (reading, language usage, math, or science). The score represents a student’s achievement

level at any given moment and helps measure their academic growth over time. It is a stable scale, like

feet and inches, that accurately measures student performance, regardless of age, grades, or grade level.

(reference: https://community.nwea.org/docs/DOC-2345)

Percentile (60th percentile): This measure describes a student’s current achievement level in the context

of a peer group, usually age or grade. Percentile scores best answer questions like how does this student’s

score compare to other students in the same grade? For example, a student who scores in the 60th

percentile means he/she did as well or better than 60% of the peer group. It is important to know that this

score does not give the full picture of the student’s achievement. (reference:

https://www.nwea.org/blog/2015/percentiles-powerful-use-care)

Conditional Growth Percentile: The conditional growth percentile, or CGP, ranges from the 1st to 99th

percentile. It indicates a student’s percentile rank for growth. For example, a student who has a CGP of

50 means the student’s growth was greater than 50 percent of similar students in the NWEA norm group.

Students are considered similar in terms of starting achievement level, grade, subject area, and number of

instructional weeks between test events. (Reference: https://community.nwea.org/docs/DOC-1630)

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Observed Growth: is the amount of measurement error associated with the term-to-term growth

between two test events. (reference: https://community.nwea.org/docs/DOC-2692)

Projected Growth: Represents the best estimate of the average growth for students at different points on

the RIT scale. This statistic can serve many purposes, such as monitoring student growth in the

classroom, summarizing school or district performance, and can be a useful guide for instructional

planning. (reference: https://www.nwea.org/blog/2013/using-percentage-students-meeting-exceeding-

growth-projections-evaluration-tool/)

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

For decades, teachers operated as kings and queens in their classrooms. Although

professional development evolved as an important aspect of teacher growth, it was clear that

there was a lack of formal collaborations. Good teachers produced classrooms that prospered,

while other teachers struggled unless they actively sought out support from others. As Gill

Elementary works to foster a collaborative culture and increase student achievement through

effective PLC’s, a review of current literature will compare its recent implementation with

current research. In addition, a review of change management research will also look at any

risks Gill Elementary may incur at sustaining the PLC process though an organizational

assessment lens. Finally, researchers with some skepticism will be reviewed to ensure

objectivity in looking at PLC success and challenges.

Renown PLC advocate Richard Dufour has worked with struggling school districts for

over ten years. He has concluded that there are several elements that are important to implement

for a successful PLC and that the primary critical success focuses on improving student learning.
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

In the first element he states that schools “begin exploring the PLC process by building

shared knowledge about the rationale for using the process” (Dufour, 2012). Teachers are wary

of “flavor-of-the-month” initiatives that begin with a flurry of projected student improvement,

only to be replaced with a newer and improved strategy. Gill Elementary practiced its due

diligence by continued conversations after a professional development espousing its relevance

and success in other districts. In addition, NWEA growth had become stagnant, producing the

impetus to try a proven method to increase student growth and proficiency.

As Gill Elementary forged ahead in its PLC implementation, not all research is sold on

PLC’s as the be-all, end-all in student success. Several authors show skepticism on the overall

effectiveness of PLC’s. In an article from a PLC opponent points out numerous perceptions that

questions its overall favorability. The author indicates a flaw in PLC’s lies with, “establishing

PLC’s accountability to higher authorities”. She further states, “in contrast to the PLC principle

of mutual accountability among teachers, bureaucratic conceptions of accountability focus on

hierarchical relationships” (Talbort, 2010). This perception contradicts the notion of

collaboration amongst teachers but more so as a task handed down to teachers as one more thing

that takes them away from teaching or planning to teach.

Looking at how PLC’s can be of benefit and analyzing risks associated with putting so

much effort into such large-scale efforts at establishing PLC’s in school districts, lends itself to

the need for districts to depend on organizational change from a business perspective. Current

business models and leaders in the field of change management could prove to help with

analyzing the true value of PLC’s and its long-term sustainability.

Even a successful initiative such as PLC’s could fall victim to program fatigue, like other

programs that the educational community has witnessed. With the implementation of any new
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

initiative, it is not for lack of motivation, diligence or passion for student learning that causes

them to fail, it is typically the lack of sustainability. Since the mid-nineties most change

management gurus use the same statistic to describe the amount of change initiatives that fail,

they indicate that 70% of new programs fail. Because PLC’s are developed as an organizational

program and a new tool to guide a culture of learning and collaboration, schools can suffer the

fate of any new program, business or idea if not aware of the pitfalls that accompany change

efforts.

Author John P. Kotter, a prominent change management champion suggests the

following, “generating a sense of urgency, establishing a powerful guiding coalition, developing

a vision, communicating the vision clearly and often, removing obstacles, planning for and

creating short-term wins, avoiding premature declarations of victory, and embedding changes in

the corporate culture” (Kotter, 2007). Gill’s stagnant NWEA indicators, the interest and

subsequent training of school leaders and the evaluation of their current vision, mission and

purpose follows Kotter’s recommendation in readiness to make systemic, substantial changes.

Gill’s ability to take an objective look at its student data paired with current and proven

research, puts the district in the perfect position to implement PLC’s and track student

achievement gains or losses. It also helps to ensure that the key questions that PLC’s are

purporting to answer in terms of student achievement are addressed.

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Chapter 3

Method of Study

All teachers at Gill Elementary participate in a professional learning community (PLC).

Each PLC is made up of teachers in the same grade level. Each team member has a role: Lead

Teacher (facilitator), and Timekeeper and Note taker. Approximately two thirds of the Lead

Teachers have previously participated in formal professional development on PLC’s. Lead

Teachers also receive training at bi-weekly Multi-Tiered Systems of Support meetings. Each

PLC meets every Wednesday during their planning period which is expanded an additional 40

minutes by substitute teacher coverage. Topics are developed each week based on four essential

questions; what do we expect our students to learn? How will we know what they learned? How

will we respond when they don’t learn? How will we respond if they already know it? The

purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of PLC’s on student achievement.

This study was conducted over the 2016-2017 school year. Surveys about their PLC’s

were distributed to teachers in May of 2017. Student NWEA data was also collected in the

spring of 2017. PLC leads participated in a focus group survey in May of 2017.

Selection of Subjects

Sixteen teachers who participate in professional learning communities in their grade level

are included in this study as well as 6 PLC leads from each grade level from Gill Elementary. In

addition, all Gill Elementary students in grades 1-5 who were administered NWEA in the fall to

Spring 2016-17 school year are also were included in this study.
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Evaluation/Research Design

The evaluation was conducted during the 2016-17 school year. Students in grade 1-5

were administered the NWEA three times during the school year during seasons, fall, winter and

spring. A PLC questionnaire was administered to grade level teachers in May 2017 at an

afterschool staff meeting. PLC leads who participate in the MTSS team meeting participated in a

focus group interview with evaluators.

Instruments

To collect data for this study, both a qualitative and quantitative approach was taken.

Quantitatively, both primary and secondary data was used to gather information. Student

performance data were reviewed from NWEA testing. This testing occurred three times each

year in the fall, winter and spring. Specifically, a comparison of student growth data was

evaluated from fall 2016 to spring 2017. A five-point Likert Scale on the topic of PLC’s was

developed and administered to teachers in May of 2017. The survey asked teachers to strongly

agree, agree, not sure, disagree or strongly disagree with statements about their PLC’s. The

statements covered teachers’ attitudes towards various aspects of their teaching, collaboration

with others, school culture and the effect of PLC’s on their instruction. Finally, a NWEA

comparative analysis of grade level teachers looked at achievement (low/high) and growth

(low/high) in four quadrants to determine

The qualitative component of this study includes a focus group interview that provides

information regarding attitudes of the implementation and effectiveness of focus groups amongst

teachers.
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Chapter 4

Triangulation of Data

To answer the research questions, a triangulation of data of qualitative and quantitative

methods were used that included four data sources. The first source was a PLC survey for each

grade-level teacher using a 5-point Likert scale with 3 short responses. Secondly, PLC

interviews for each grade-level PLC lead were conducted using standardized, but open-ended

questions. The third sources used were NWEA reports analyzing achievement data from grade-

level PLC teams. Two different reports were used from the NWEA site. The grade level report

displayed overall grade level proficiency in the areas of math and reading. The fourth source

analyzed was NWEA teacher quadrant report that displayed individual teacher results for growth

and proficiency from fall 2016 and spring 2017. In addition to the survey results, our research

team looked at math and reading NWEA results from fall of 2016 to spring of 2017, after the

implementation of PLC teams.

PLC Survey and Interviews

A survey was administered to all Gill teaching staff regarding Professional Learning

Communities in May 2017. The 21-question survey was a combination of 5-point Likert scale

statements and open-ended responses. Gill has a veteran staff with approximately 60% of the

teachers with more than 11 years of experience and 8 years within the building. Norms are

stated to be a key component in their grade level PLCs. Eighty percent of teachers feel they have

to adhere to their norms within their PLC which allows meetings to be productive. Collaboration

is a major part of a culture as reflected in the survey and 90% feel their conversations are related

to student learning. All staff feels supported by their principal in the PLC process, who regularly

attends their meetings.

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Gill has foundational meeting structure and focus in place, however some teachers feel

that teams needs to continue to work on scales and common assessments. Although most

teachers feel their colleagues are open to receiving feedback, the area of most concern was the

confidence that they will change their practice based on their conversations. However, all but

one teacher feels that their PLC conversations have impacted their own teaching practice.

The first question, “What do you like most about PLC’s in our building”? Teachers

identified many benefits in participating in a PLC. Collaboration to share ideas, receive

feedback and focus on the growth of all students was major themes in their responses. One

teacher responded, “We also all have student growth in the front of our brain!!!” They also value

the time they are given to meet and use actively use data to inform instructional decisions on a

regular basis. Teachers have begun creating common assessments to use during their time as

well. Many teachers reported feeling supported by their colleagues, have positive relationships

and feel inspired. Specials teachers reported the benefit of connecting across the district with

colleagues since they are the only one who teaches the subject in the building.

Teachers were also asked, “How can it (PLC’s) be improved? Most teachers reported

that they could benefit from more time to collaborate and more focus. Towards the end of the

year, it appears to be more challenging to find time to time. One teacher commented “Lately it

has been very hard to meet outside of the school day to discuss our data. We have been using the

phone more, and I just do better working in person”. In addition to time, there was an articulated

need for a designated quiet space and additional training on the data base system to access data.

Although teachers reported that they have norms, some teachers indicated that they need

reminders throughout the year to adhere to them, as well as more direction for developing

instructional groups within the PLC structure. Some teachers feel that they need to look at more
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

data in the meetings, establish a set agenda, and create rubrics that include common formative

assessments. They also indicated that their teams need to have a clearer established goal for the

year.

Finally, Gill Elementary teachers were asked, “What does your principal do to support

you?” They reported that the principal is very supportive of PLC time in a variety of ways by

“thinking out of the box” as described by one teacher. Some examples to honor the time needed

to analyze student data include: providing substitutes for extended collaboration attached to

planning time and arranged assemblies. Many teachers reported her to be present regularly at the

PLC meetings to provide guidance, answer questions or to check-in. The principal is said to

have a collaborative mindset and a focus on using data to look at all students, which sets the

culture for the school. PLC is seen as a priority with several opportunities for training provided

to all staff. She also supports the teams by collecting data for them. Teams know that she is

available when needed and feel they are supported.

Additional information regarding PLC functioning was gathered from grade-level leads

within the building. Lead Teachers provided evidence in which the principal supports

professional learning for the PLC process. They indicated most staff has attended 3-day PLC

training out of state within the last 4 years. A small group also visited a school that noted to be a

PLC district to gather information and ideas. The principal has made the commitment to attend

the training with her staff every year. As a result, leads feel like meetings have more of a focus

and they are able to get more accomplished.

All grade-level leads feel that the PLC process is beneficial to the building. They

reported that they are looking at data more frequently and differently. They have grade-level

discussions to support instructional support time for intervention and extension. Meetings feel
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

more collaborative and the time is valued. Most importantly, student achievement is reported to

have been impacted from a result of their collaboration as evidenced in data.

PLC leads identified some opportunities for improvement moving forward for their teams

and school. Some activities identified for teams include: come more prepared and look at data

sooner in the process. There was mention of the need for common assessments which may help

with some of the data review. More training was recommended during the school year as it may

be difficult for some teachers to dedicate time to attend an out-of-state training in the summer.

In addition, training on accessing information in the data warehouse system would be beneficial

because not all groups feel confident with their technology skills.

For PLC school improvement, many leads reported that it would be nice to have cross-

level conversation to know what other grade levels are focusing on and how. Since instructional

support time is a planned within PLCs, teams would like more flexibility from the district on the

structure based on grade level. District work groups were also created power standards per grade

level, which teams were anticipating supporting the work they are doing within their teams as

well.

To answer to our research questions and evaluating data, our first research question was,

“To what extent do administrators foster the school to a culture of collaboration”? As we

evaluated survey data, administrators demonstrated through their commitment with training, time

allotted for collaboration, that they are committed to implementation an environment where

teachers and staff work together to improve student achievement. This commitment is a key

component of a successful PLC implementation.

The second research question asks, “To what extent do teachers attitudes impact PLC?”

The survey results indicate that teachers both understand and value how these collaborative
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

groups impact their teaching support increasing student achievement. Finally, we asked, “How

effective is the PLC process in improving student achievement?” The data indicates that

students in general show an increase in mean RIT scores across all grades in Math and Reading.

Although the limitations in research indicate that you cannot definitively attribute the increase in

NWEA scores to PLC’s alone, our research does show that teachers positive attitudes towards

collaborative work and the commitment from administration to teachers working together are

instrumental in the student achievement gains Gill Elementary has experienced. Our final

research question was, “How effective is the PLC process in improving student achievement”?

The NWEA Scores overall summary for spring indicates that students at Gill Elementary

had substantial growth in the first grade and steadily decline from 2nd grade to 5th. Each grade

level collaborative groups have an opportunity look at NWEA data to understand specific

concepts where students excel and are challenged. Although a new PLC group is looking

reactively to NWEA data, it gives them the opportunity to root cause the correlations between

successful strategies and identify and work together to address student achievement deficiencies.

NWEA Reports and Quadrant Data

st
1 Grade Mathematics

1st grade had a mean RIT score of 190 in the spring of 2017 which is 9.2 points above the Norm

Grade Level Mean RIT and 2 points above the District Grade Level Mean RIT. Observed

growth was 30.1 which is the average change in RIT growth in 1st grade math from fall 2016 to

spring 2017. The observed growth for 1st graders at 30.1 points is greater than the projected

growth at 18.5 points. This means that 1st grade had a higher than average growth. They also

had a School Conditional Growth Percentile of 99 which means that 1st grade grew more than 99

percent of the other 1st graders who took this test in the US. 87% of students also made their
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

growth projections in 1st grade. This school district considers 60th percentile achievement to be

proficient in their district. In 1st grade, 58% of students would be considered proficient in this

district.

1st Grade Reading

The mean RIT score for 1st grade in reading was 158.6 (1.3 points below district mean RIT of

159.9 and 2 points below norm grade level mean RIT) in the fall of 2016 and 186.1 in the spring

of 2017. Projected growth for these students was 16.7, and observed growth was 27.5,

substantially exceeding the expected growth. As with math, proficiency is considered at the 60th

percentile. For 1st graders in reading, 85% met projected growth and are considered proficient.

2nd Grade Mathematics

Second grade had a mean RIT score of 197.5 in the spring of 2017 which is 5.6 points above the

Norm Grade Level Mean RIT of 192.1 and 2.2 points above the District Grade Level Mean RIT

of 195.5. Observed growth was 16.4 which are greater than their projected growth at 15.1

points. This means that they had slightly higher than average growth from the fall of 2016 to

spring of 2017. 2nd grade had a School Conditional Growth Percentile of 68. Their growth was

greater than 68% of 2nd graders who took this test in the US. 63% of students met their growth

projection. According to this district, 64% of students are considered proficient.

2nd grade Reading

Second grade readers at had a mean RIT score of 179.1 in the fall of 2016 and 197.4 in the spring

of 2017. The students observed growth 18.3 during this period exceeded projected growth of

13.9. Only 33% of students in the U.S scored higher that the students in this group. 72% of

these students are considered proficient.

3rd Grade Mathematics

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

3rd grade had a mean RIT score of 202.1 in the spring of 2017 which is below the Norm Grade

Level Mean RIT of 205.9. Their observed growth was 9.9 points which is 3.2 points below their

projected growth of 13.1 from fall 2016 to spring 2017. 3rd grade had lower than average

growth. 3rd grade had a School Conditional Growth Percentile of 28 which means they grew

better than 28% of 3rd graders who took this test in the US. 33% of students met their projected

growth and 33% of 3rd grades would be considered proficient by this school district.

3rd Grade Reading

3rd grade had a mean RIT score of 189.7 in the fall of 2016 and a mean RIT score of 200.0 in the

spring of 2017, which exceeded the Norm Grade Level Mean RIT of 188.3. Their observed

growth was 10.3 points which is 3.2 points below their projected growth of 13.1 from fall 2016

to spring 2017. 3rd grade had lower than average growth. 3rd grade had a School Conditional

Growth Percentile of 28 which means they grew better than 28% of 3rd graders who took this test

in the US. 33% of students met their projected growth and 33% of 3rd grades would be

considered proficient by this school district.

4th Grade Mathematics

4th grade had a mean RIT score of 213.3 in the spring of 2017 which is very close to the Norm

Grade Level Mean RIT of 213.5 and 3.2 points below the District Grade Level Mean RIT of

216.5. Their observed growth was 12.2, which is slightly higher than their projected growth of

11.5 points from fall 2016 to spring 2017. 4th grade had slightly higher than average growth.

They had a School Conditional Growth Percentile of 62, which mean they grew more than 44%

of the other 4th grade students who took this test in the US. 53% of students met their projected

growth targets and 38% of 4th graders at this school would be considered proficient by this

district.
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

4th Grade Reading

4th graders at Gill Elementary had a mean RIT score of 201.4 in the fall of 2016 and 209.4 in the

spring of 2017. There observed growth of 7.9 exceeded projected growths of 7.7. The school

conditional growth measure was 55%, indicating that only 45% of students in the school

normative comparison group exceeded their mean RIT. 55% of 4th graders are considered

proficient at this school.

5th Grade Mathematics

5th grade had a mean RIT score of 221.5 in the spring of 2017. This .2 points more than the

Norm Grade Level Mean RIT of 221.4 and 2.7 points below the District Grade Level Mean Rit.

Their observed growth 9.2 and is slightly lower than their projected growth of 10.1 points. 5th

grade had a slight below average growth from fall 2016 to spring 2017. They had a School

Conditional Growth Percentile of 37, so they grew better than 37% of 5th graders who took this

test in the US. 51% of 5th graders at this school met their growth target. 44% of 5th grades are

considered proficient by this district.

5th Grade Reading

In the fall of 2016 student had a mean score of 204.7 and increased to 211.5 in the spring of

2017. The observed growth of 6.8 exceeded projected growth of 6.1. 57% of are considered

proficient. Their Conditional Growth Percentile (School Norms) was 58, indicating that only

42% of students scored higher than this group in the district and at 54, only 46% of U.S. students

scored higher.
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

NWEA Quadrant Data

The NWEA Scores overall summary for spring indicate that students at Gill Elementary have

substantial growth in the first grade and although each grade level mean RIT scores showed

growth and increases in proficiency from fall to spring, growth gains begin to diminish from 2nd

grade to 5th. Each grade level collaborate groups has an opportunity look at NWEA data in

grade level groups and the data is reported in a way to understand specific concepts where

students excel and are challenged.

Quadrant data by grade level teachers indicate which individual teachers had students that

met projected growth (mean score). In addition, the quadrant shows which students have low

achievement, but high growth, low achievement and low growth, high achievement and high

growth (the ideal quadrant) and high achievement and low growth by specific demographics (e.g.

ethnicity and gender). This data provides an effective tool for administrators to look at

effectiveness of teachers in each grade level, but more importantly, provides a snapshot of how

groups of students are performing with achievement and growth.

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Discussion of Results

In the review of triangulated results, a few observations can be made. In the NWEA,

overall improvements in growth and achievement were substantial better with grades 1st through

3rd grades. Grades 4th and 5th made substantially smaller improvements. This provides Gill an

opportunity to discuss these trends during the PLC and to understand if this is common for

elementary learners to progress substantially in lower grades that can be provided by

benchmarking similar districts and nation-wide data.

Quadrant data provides individual teachers the opportunity to study both groups of

students to adjust teaching methods like differentiated methods and materials. In addition,

administrators are provided a look across grades, teachers and students that can support

struggling teachers in specific areas and leverage stronger teachers if teachers feel safe during

PLC discussions of comparative data.

The surveys and interviews provided very specific information regarding continuous

improvement opportunities for the planning, preparation and delivery of PLC content and

implementation. For example, a red-flag was presented for administrators when interview results

indicated that teachers need more planning time within the school day. This information could

avoid conflicts with union rules and provide an opportunity for creative solutions from both staff

and administration.

The importance of triangulation of evaluating the PLC process is without measure. It

provides a “birds-eye-view” of program success and opportunities to self-correct.

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

Conclusion

Overall, the process of training employees on PLC implementation and practice appear to

be successful as teachers and administrators find value in the PLC process at Gill Elementary. In

conjunction with measures of success in grade level year-to-year comparisons of NWEA data,

the overarching goal of an increase in student achievement, Gill Elementary PLC process

appears to have a major contribution to this success.

However, as NWEA results show overall growth and achievement across grade levels,

there should be caution in attributing these increases solely on the implementation of the PLC

process in the absence of a control group. Despite some varied limitations with contributing

success of any venture on one variable, teachers at Gill do find value in collaborative methods

and support of administrators as reported in a survey conducted with this research. Teachers

have provided very specific feedback for continuous improvement. This provides administrators

a chance to evaluate and prioritize those items that would directly impact student achievement

and leverage the talents and successes of teachers. It also provides data to support new teachers

or those who may be struggling.

Recommendations

As indicated in the first chapter, teachers feel overwhelmed with the pressures of being

evaluated based on student performance. The implementation of the PLC process has provided a

platform and dedicated time to share ideas, feel supported and evaluate student performance.

The PLC process at Gill gives them strategic time to evaluate both their instructional methods in

conjunction with student data results by grade level and by each teacher. Administration’s
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

commitment to supporting time for collaboration and planning appear to be yielding positive

results internally (with teachers) and externally (an increase in student achievement and growth).

This should continue with consistent internal monitoring of PLC through surveys and feedback

methods (e.g. professional development feedback forms). As such there were several

fundamental recommendations that came this research team’s survey of staff that would provide

systemic value. They are listed below:

1. Some teachers feel that they need to look at more data in the meetings, establish a

set agenda, and create rubrics that include common formative assessments. They

also indicated that their teams need to have a clearer established goal for the year.

2. Teachers want more time to collaborate and at times are asked to meet outside of

school hours. Some teachers have chosen to meet by phone

Gill Elementary has shown many achievements in their PLC process, however, it is

always beneficial to benchmark other PLC programs. Success is relative, and if you never

measure your success against outside entities, successes remain limited in their scope of self-

evaluation and improvements. Time is always a constraint; however, technology has mad vast

differences in the ability to connect worldwide. Additionally, although the 4 fundamental

questions that are asked regarding student improvement are a good way to stay focused but may

limit the ability to root cause symptoms of challenges or capture the essence of successful

instructional methods. One additional area of concern is the common practice at Gill to publicize

student achievement and growth by teacher. This may not account factors outside the teacher’s

control in comparison to other teachers. For example, two first grade teachers may have

inequitable student populations that impact student performance such as special education, ELL
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

or transient students. Although some demographics are reported, they are not accounted for in a

narrative with the that this team was provided. This could cause dysfunctional relationships

amongst teachers.

One major recommendation for Gill Elementary is to create a bank of knowledge (BOK).

Many successful implementations of programs do not capture their successes or limitations and

are subject to lose them when personnel leave or become subject to repeating mistakes. Several

industries have incorporated the use of BOK’s for at least 2 decades.

Future Research

Gill Elementary has taken a comprehensive approach to the research, training and

implementation of the PLC process to impact both instruction and student learning. In the spirit

of continuous improvement, there are at four areas of probable future research with Gill

Elementary and their PLC process:

1. Collaboration amongst other elementary schools in the Farmington district. This

would be beneficial in the standardization across schools and grade levels. As

successful practices are put in place, this would benefit future teacher, students

(and teachers) that transfer to other schools in the district.

2. Collaboration with elementary schools outside the district with similar

populations. This may offer ideas, strategies and help to streamline PLC

practices.

3. Focus on a continued internal check of PLC efficiency and effectiveness. If

measure of success is based on student data, then it may be too late to vary
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

methods and processes once the NWEA scores (for example) are in. Taking the

pulse of teachers and administrators on how the PLC process is progressing is

key.

4. Triangulate data outside of the PLC process to look for other variables that impact

student growth and achievement. Variables such as teacher turnover rates,

changes in student population (e.g. an increase in English Language Learners) or

parental involvement are examples of things that may impact the success of

student learning.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Gill Elementary appears to have implemented the PLC process as

instrumental in building a collaborative culture where teachers can share instructional methods,

discuss challenges and successes in relation to student success. This research has provided area

of celebration in the relationship of student increases in learning pre and post PLC

implementation. To continuously improve this success, Gill Elementary should embrace its

limitations with proactive measures such as a continuous look at implementation efficiency,

triangulate variables when reporting data results and look to standardize district-wide PLC

practices along with outside benchmarking.

The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

References
A
Dufour, R. (2012). When Districts Function as Professional Learning Communities.
Education Digest, 77(9), 28-29.

Kotter, J. (2007). Leading Change: When Transformational Efforts Fail. Harvard

Business Review.

Talbort, J. (2010) Professional Learning Communities at the Crossroads: How Systems

Hinder or Engender Change. Stanford University

NWEA Home. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2017, from http://www.nwea.org/

User, C. (2017, October 24). How can I explain RIT scores to students and parents?

Retrieved November 19, 2017, from https://community.nwea.org/docs/DOC-2345

Percentiles are Powerful – Use with Care. (2015, April 28). Retrieved November 19,

2017, from https://www.nwea.org/blog/2015/percentiles-powerful-use-care

User, C. (2017, June 06). Conditional growth percentile. Retrieved November 19, 2017,

from https://community.nwea.org/docs/DOC-1630
The Evaluation of Professional Learning Communities at Gill Elementary School

User, C. (2017, October 26). Observed growth is less than the standard error (SE) for

growth. Retrieved November 19, 2017, from https://community.nwea.org/docs/DOC-2692

Using the Percentage of Students Meeting of Exceeding Their Growth Projections as an

Evaluation Tool. (2016, November 23). Retrieved November 19, 2017, from

https://www.nwea.org/blog/2013/using-percentage-students-meeting-exceeding-growth-

projections-evaluration-tool/