PLC at Gill 747 Portfolio

Running Head: THE EVALUATION OF PLC AT GILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
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
Lindson Feun, PH.D.
Oakland University
May, 2018
THE EVALUATION OF PLC AT GILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………3
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..5
Background……………………………………………………………………………………………...6
Evaluation/Research Questions………………………………………………………………………....7
Assumptions and Limitations…………………………………………………………………………...8
Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………....8
Chapter 2: Review of Literature…………………………………………………………………………...10
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….11
Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………………12
Chapter 3: Method of Study……………………………………………………………………………….12
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………….13
Selection of Subjects…………………………………………………………………………………...14
Evaluation/Research Design…………………………………………………………………………...14
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………..15
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………….15
Chapter 4: Results of the Study…………………………………………………………………………....15
Triangulation of Data…………………………………………………………………………………..15
PLC Survey and Interviews……………………………………………………………………………15
NWEA Reports and Data……………………………………………………………………………....16
1st Grade Mathematics………………………………………………………………………………....18
2nd Grade Mathematics………………………………………………………………………………..19
2nd Grade Reading………………………………………...…………………………………………..19
3rd Grade Mathematics………………………………………………………………………………...20
3rd Grade Reading……………………………………………………………………………………..21
4th Grade Mathematics………………………………………………………………………………...22
4th Grade Reading……………………………………………………………………………………..22
5th Grade Mathematics………………………………………………………………………………...23
5th Grade Reading………………………………………………………………………………...…...23
NWEA Quadrant Data…………………………………………………………………………………24
Discussion of Results…………………………………………………………………………………..24
Chapter 5: Recommendations and Conclusions……………………………………………………….….25
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………...25
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………...25
Future Research………………………………………………………………………………………...27
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………29
Appendix A: PLC Principal Permission Letter…………………………………………………………....30
Appendix B: PLC Teacher Questionnaire……………………..………………………………………….31
Appendix C: PLC Lead Teacher Interview………………….……………………………………………35
Appendix D: PLC Lead Teacher Questionnaire Results……….…………………………………………36
Appendix E: NWEA Student Growth Summary………………………………………………………....38
Appendix F: NWEA Achievement Scores……………………………………………………………….39
Acknowledgments
A special thank you to Christina Suliman, principal and her staff for allowing us to conduct our
research for professional learning communities at Gill Elementary School. We would also like to thank
Dr. Lindson Feun, our professor for his support and guidance through the action research project. As well
as Oakland University for providing and learning experience to develop our research skills.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate Professional Learning Communities (PLC) at Gill
Elementary School and the impact a principal has on this systemic approach. PLC’s are a
collaborative approach for educators to increase student achievement by using data to inform
instruction. Research questions include, how do administrators facilitate school culture to foster a
culture of collaboration, to what extent do teachers’ attitudes impact PLC’s and how effective is
the PLC process in improving student achievement? All teachers in grades 1-5 participated in
this study as well as their students. Student achievement was determined through using several
measures including RIT scores, Conditional Growth Percentile, observed and projected growth
as provided by NWEA. Teachers also participated in surveys and interviews. Overall, the
opportunity for training staff on PLC implementation and practice appears to be successful as
teachers and administrators find value in the PLC process at Gill Elementary. In conjunction
with measures of growth and achievement in most grade levels in year-to-year comparisons of
NWEA data, Gill Elementary PLC process is a major contribution to this success.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
The curricular demands of implementing the Common 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. Many times, teachers need to 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.” (Dufour, 2016,
pg. 11). In the current structure of education, teachers are 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.” (Dufour et. al, 2016, pg. 1o). There are three big ideas that
drive the work of the PLC process: a focus on learning, a collaborative culture and a 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/or 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
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 was 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 was also determined to identify a time in the day for all students to receive
what they need in relation to what they need without the missing out on the learning of new concepts.
This time (referred to as Instructional Support Time (IST)) would provide intervention and extension
opportunities to all students. As a result, IST was created 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 Administrator continues to support the
process through her guidance and finding time for collaboration.
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 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 had already started
gathering data on program effectiveness to help inform the 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 is focused on reading. Another assumption is that all teachers responded to the survey and
interview questions honestly and accurately.

One of the limitations this team had was the evaluation only occurring in one building. This
limited the ability to compare Gill 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.
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)
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
Introduction
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.
Review of Literature
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.
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. Talbort 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 to schools, and analyzing the risks associated
with the effort needed for a large-scale implementation of its concepts, lends itself to the need for
districts to depend on organizational change methodologies. Current business models and
leaders in the field of change management could support them to see the true value, risks and
associated cost 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
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.
Chapter 3
Method of Study
Overview
All teachers at Gill Elementary participate in a professional learning community (PLC).
Each PLC consists of teachers in the same grade level. Each team member has a role: Lead
Teacher (facilitator), 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 and support at bi-weekly Multi-Tiered Systems of Support
meetings. Each PLC meets every Wednesday during their planning period for 1.5 hours. This
time has been expanded by adding an extra 40 minutes to common planning time with the
support of a substitute teacher. 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 Gill teachers for grades 1-5 in May of 2017. Student NWEA data was also
collected in the spring of 2017. PLC leads from grades 1-5 participated in a focus group survey
in May of 2017. Consent forms are included in Appendix A.
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 included in this study.
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 1st-5th grade teachers in May 2017 at an
afterschool staff meeting. PLC leads for grades 1-5, who participate in the MTSS team meeting
participated in a focus group interview with evaluators.
Description of 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.
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.
Data Analysis
NWEA uses normative data to develop growth and status norms. Data is collected from
over 29,000 schools in 49 states. Norms are revisited every three years to stay current
(reference: https://www.nwea.org/normative-data-rit-scores/). Survey and interview data was
compiled and analyzed using descriptive statistics. This included looking at the frequency of
responses as well as patterns and trends in these responses.
Summary
In summary, during the 2016-2017 school year, participants in PLC’s at Gill Elementary
completed surveys about their PLC experience. Lead teachers were also participated in
interviews. NWEA Fall to Spring data was collected from 1st grade through 5th grade. Student
growth data from Fall to Spring was analyzed as well as survey and interview data.
Chapter 4
Results of the Study
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
See Appendices B-D
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, 80% of teachers feel they have to adhere
to their norms within their PLC which allows meetings to be productive. Statements were
organized under two topics: collaboration and a focus on learning. 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.
Gill has the greatest challenges within a focus on learning for their PLC’s. Teachers had
the highest responses of disagree and strongly disagree to statements regarding scales and
common assessments. Although most teachers reported they feel their colleagues are open to
receiving feedback, there was a lack of confidence that they will change their practice based on
their conversations. However, all but one teacher felt 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 were 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, having positive relationships
and feeling 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 database 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
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 was 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
more collaborative and the time is valued. Most importantly, student achievement is reported to
have been impacted as 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 also created power standards per grade
level, which teams were anticipating supporting using 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
groups impact their teaching to increase 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 we 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 Data
See Appedicies E-F
NWEA 1st 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 U.S. 87% of students also made their
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.
NWEA 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.
NWEA 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 U.S. 63% of students met their
growth projection. According to this district, 64% of students are considered proficient.
NWEA 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.
NWEA 3rd Grade Mathematics
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 U.S. 33% of students met their
projected growth and 33% of 3rd grades would be considered proficient by this school district.
NWEA 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.
NWEA 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 U.S. 53% of students met their projected
growth targets and 38% of 4th graders at this school would be considered proficient by this
district.
NWEA 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.
NWEA 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 U.S. 51% of 5th graders at this school met their growth target. 44% of 5th grades are
considered proficient by this district.
NWEA 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.
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 collaborative group has an opportunity look at NWEA data during
meetings 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.
Discussion of Results
In the review of triangulated results, a few observations can be made. As shown in the
NWEA data, overall improvements in growth and achievement were substantially better in
grades 1st through 3rd. Grades 4th and 5th made smaller improvements. This provides Gill an
opportunity to discuss these trends during PLC’s and to understand if this is a common trend for
elementary learners.
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, and can support struggling teachers in specific
areas. Administrators can also leverage stronger teachers provided the environment feels 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 may present for the administrator 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.

Chapter 5
Recommendations and Conclusions
Conclusion
Overall, the process of training employees on PLC implementation and practice appears
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 the support of their administrator as reported in a survey conducted with this research.
Teachers have provided very specific feedback for continuous improvement. This provides the
administrator 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
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 one never measure their
success against outside entities, successes remain limited in their scope of self-evaluation and
improvements. Time is always a constraint; however, technology has had vast differences in the
ability to connect worldwide. Additionally, although the 4 fundamental questions that are asked
regarding student achievement are a good way to stay focused, they 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 or transient students. Although
some demographics are reported, they are not accounted for in a narrative with what 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. Creating
a book of knowledge provides teachers and administrators the opportunity to leverage effective
strategies to support student achievement. 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
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.
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 an
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.

References
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
Normative Data & RIT Scores. (n.d.). Retrieved March 7, 2018, from
https://www.nwea.org/normative-data-rit-scores/
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
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/
Appendix A: PLC Principal Permission Letter
March 11, 2017
Mrs. Christina Suliman, Principal

Gill Elementary School
21195 Gill Rd.
Farmington Hills, MI. 48335
Dear Mrs. Suliman,
We are part of an educational specialist cohort from Oakland University conducting action
research on the administrative impact on Professional Learning Communities. Our research
questions are: To what extent do administrators foster the school to a culture of collaboration?,
To what extent do teachers attitudes impact PLC?, How are PLC’s measured to be effective?
We are seeking permission to survey teachers at Gill Elementary Schools. The principal and
teachers at Gill will be our focus for our research. We would like to conduct the survey in May
2017. Prior to conducting the survey we will be obtaining consent from teachers. Their
participation will be voluntary and all information will remain anonymous. These is no risk in
taking this survey. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits and subjects
may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.
When the research is complete, the findings will be made public but no student information will
be identifiable as the survey is being completed anonymously. The information from our
research will benefit future staff when implementing professional learning communities. We
would appreciate your approval for this project. Please indicate your permission on the form
below and return it to Airess Stewart. If you have specific questions regarding this research
project please contact Airess Stewart at 248-705-9126 or Lindson Feun, Ph.D., Faculty
Sponsor, Oakland University at 248-877-6565.
Sincerely,
Airess Stewart Katie Jeffrey Sebrina Shields
I give permission for the cohort group from Oakland University to conduct a survey of teachers
to research on the administrative impact on Professional Learning Communities.
Appendix B: PLC Teacher Questionnaire
Demographic Information
1. How many years have you been in your building
● 0-3
● 4-7
● 8-11
● 11+
2. How many years of teaching experience do you have?
● 0-3
● 4-7
● 8-11
● 11+
Collaborative Culture
3. We have agreed upon a set norms in our collaborative team
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
● Strongly Disagree
4. We follow meeting norms in our collaborative team
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
5. Norms help us have productive, effective conversations.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
6. A majority of our collaborative time is spent on (80 percent or more) on tasks related to
student learning goals.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
7. Our school values collaboration

● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
8. The principal supports our PLC
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
9. I have improved as a classroom teacher as a result of conversations and work we have done in
our PLC.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
10. I have made changes to my teaching practices as a result of the work we have done in our
PLC.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
Focus on Learning
11. Academic goals within our PLC are connected to our School Improvement goals
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
12. My collaborative team is administering common assessments at least monthly to our
students (in other words, all students complete the same assessments).
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
13. My collaborative team uses rubrics to score students' common assessments.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
14. My collaborative team regularly analyzes data from students' common assessments.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
15. I adjust the instructional practices in my classroom based on my students' performance on
common assessments.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
16. The teachers on my team are willing to change their practices for the good of PLC
community.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
17. Teachers show responsibility with bringing appropriate student data to meetings.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
18. Teachers on my team are open to receiving feedback and implementing strategies based on
shared data.
● Strongly Agree
● Agree
● Not Sure
● Disagree
Short Answer Responses

19. What do you like best about your PLC?
20. How can your PLC be improved?
21. What does the principal do to support your PLC?
Appendix C: PLC Lead Teacher Interview
1. Grade Level Lead:

● 1
● 2
● 3
● 4
● 5
2. In what ways does your administrator support your PLC?
3. Do you have professional learning opportunities for PLC?
● yes
● no
4. If yes, what kind of opportunities are you provided?
5. To what extent does it impact your team meetings?
6. Do you feel your team finds the PLC process meaningful to inform your instruction?
● yes
● no
7. How do you know?
8. Do you feel your team finds the PLC process impacts student achievement?
● yes
● no
9. How do you know?
10. What suggestions do you have to improve the PLC process for your team?
11. What suggestions do you have to improve the PLC process for your school?
Appendix D: PLC Teacher Questionnaire Results
Collaboration
strongly
strongly agree agree not sure disagree disagree
We have agreed upon a
set norms in our 35% 52% 4% 9% 0%
collaborative team
We follow meeting
norms in our 9% 74% 0% 17% 0%
collaborative team
Norms help us have
productive, effective 30% 65% 4% 0% 0%
conversations.
A majority of our
collaborative time is
spent on (80 percent or 35% 57% 9% 0% 0%
more) on tasks related to
student learning goals.
Our school values
61% 39% 0% 0% 0%
collaboration
The principal supports
91% 9% 0% 0% 0%
our PLC
I have improved as a
classroom teacher as a
result of conversations 53% 39% 9% 0% 0%
and work we have done
in our PLC.
I have made changes to
my teaching practices as
39% 57% 4% 0% 0%
a result of the work we
have done in our PLC.
Focus on Learning
strongly
strongly agree agree not sure disagree disagree
Academic goals within
our PLC are connected to
39% 44% 17% 0% 0%
our School Improvement
goals
My collaborative team is
administering common
assessments at least
monthly to our students 52% 30% 9% 9% 0%
(in other words, all
students complete the
same assessments).
My collaborative team
regularly analyzes data
9% 65% 9% 13% 4%
from students' common
assessments
I adjust the instructional
practices in my classroom
based on my students' 26% 52% 13% 9% 0%
performance on common
assessments.
The teachers on my team
are willing to change
52% 44% 4% 0% 0%
their practices for the
good of PLC community.
Teachers show
responsibility with
13% 65% 13% 9% 0%
bringing appropriate
student data to meetings
Teachers on my team are
open to receiving
feedback and 39% 48% 9% 4% 0%
implementing strategies
based on shared data
Appendix E: NWEA Student Growth Summary

Appendix F: NWEA Achievement Scores
Percent of students proficient (60 percentile or higher) for math

Fall 2016 Winter 2017 Spring 2017
1st grade 44% 49% 57%
2nd grade 58% 60% 64%
3rd grade 51% 43% 40%
4th grade 29% 27% 38%
5th grade 46% 35% 43%
Percent of students proficient (60 percentile or higher) for reading

Fall 2016 Winter 2017 Spring 2017
1st grade 36% 52% 62%
2nd grade 55% 67% 76%
3rd grade 46% 50% 47%
4th grade 54% 46% 47%
5th grade 40% 38% 42%


PLC at Gill 747 Portfolio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLC at Gill 747 Portfolio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: THE EVALUATION OF PLC AT GILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

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

Lindson Feun, PH.D.

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

elementary school’s PLC’s plan of action.

professional development plan for the 2014-15 school year.

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?

process through her guidance and finding time for collaboration.

through increased test scores and teacher visits.

research questions were the focus of our research and evaluation:

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

interview questions honestly and accurately.

positively correlates to overall student achievement.

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

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

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

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

objectivity in looking at PLC success and challenges.

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

diligence by continued conversations after a professional development espousing its relevance

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

mutual accountability among teachers, bureaucratic conceptions of accountability focus on

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

that takes them away from teaching or planning to teach.

districts to depend on organizational change methodologies. Current business models and

associated cost of PLC’s and its long-term sustainability.

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

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

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

purporting to answer in terms of student achievement are addressed.

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

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

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

in May of 2017. Consent forms are included in Appendix A.

Spring 2016-17 school year are also included in this study.

participated in a focus group interview with evaluators.

(low/high) in four quadrants.

(reference: https://www.nwea.org/normative-data-rit-scores/). Survey and interview data was

responses as well as patterns and trends in these responses.

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

implementation of PLC teams.

PLC Survey and Interviews

See Appendices B-D

impacted their own teaching practice.

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

available when needed and feel they are supported.

focus and they are able to get more accomplished.

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

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

component of a successful PLC implementation.

instrumental in the student achievement gains Gill Elementary has experienced.

NWEA Reports and Data

See Appedicies E-F

NWEA 1st Grade Mathematics