Okemos Public SchoolsMarch 2010

Committee Members Deb Chamberlain, Gifted and Talented Coordinator Marsha Chance, Gifted and Talented Coordinator Jennifer Garmon, OHS English Teacher Sue Hallman, Edgewood Montessori Principal Jodi Hancock, Central Parent John Hood, CMS Principal Pam Kliewer, OEA President John Lanzetta, OHS Principal Missy McCarthy, OHS Math Teacher Margie McJames, OHS Math Teacher Matt Prinz, KMS Montessori Teacher Paula Pulter, Cornell 3rd Grade Teacher Vick Pursley, Hiawatha 3rd Grade Teacher Christine Skoutelas, OHS Special Education Teacher Deb Sprecher, Elementary Music Teacher Patricia Trelstad, Assistant Superintendent Pam Williams, OHS Special Education Teacher

Cheryl Kreger, Superintendent and Committee Facilitator

Research points to the effectiveness of sustained, job-embedded, collaborative teacher learning strategies to improve student understanding and achievement.

Incorporates Best PracticeIs Data DrivenFacilitates ConsistencyAllows for 100% ParticipationCultivates Collaboration

Increases Efficiency/EffectivenessUtilizes Established ProtocolsProvides AccountabilityCreates Rigorous and Engaging

OpportunitiesAll Research Based

Approach to Teacher Learning in the Highest Achieving Nations*:

Professional learning and collaboration built into teachers’ work hours

Ongoing, job-embedded professional development

Extensive opportunities for formal and informal inservice

Supportive induction programs for new teachersTeacher involvement in decision making

*Japan, Sweden, South Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom, Finland, Australia as measured by PISA and TIMSS

Okemos High School

Where we’ve been…

Researching PLCs for past three years:New graduation requirements for 2006 Building Planning TeamFailure is Not an OptionSite visits to schools that have PLCs

Where we’ve been…In 2009:

Held full-day Professional Development PLC expert Nancy Colflesh – included practice PLC PLC practitioner John Bolger of Adlai Stevenson HS

Piloted a PLC last springShared information at faculty meetingsConducted surveys to solicit ongoing feedback

from faculty

Where we are now …2009-2010 pilot program

Research supports ongoing, consistent time for PLCs

Attempted to meet monthly—but were restricted by current school day schedule All-school lunches; faculty meeting; all-day PD days Not sustainable

Where we are now …PLCs grouped by department; subject areaGroups follow protocols

Ensure time is used wiselyEnsure everyone participates

First two PLCs: set norms and goals for group

Subsequent meetings: Groups tackle their goals; determine own agenda

Where we are now…

PLCs are group-specific; work varies:Algebra II Honors: Creating activities and

assessments to improve study skills and higher order thinking

Biology: Developing common assessments in order to analyze student achievement

English: Ensuring more consistent curriculum delivery (focusing on writing instruction)

Where we are now…

System established for accountabilityShared leadershipGroups track progress; keep and file notes

Positive feedback from facultyPoised to continue the work

Where we hope to go…Groundwork is in place

Groups are assembledTeachers are trained in the use of protocolsWe are beginning to make progress on our

goalsCurrent process for finding meeting time is

not sustainableSystemic change is needed in order to be

effective

Elementary and Middle Schools

Where we are now…Focus on ResultsUniversal Screening used three times each

year (AIMSweb Assessments) Phonics and Phonemic Awareness Oral Reading Fluency Reading Comprehension

OPS Data Collection Fall in grades K-2 and 6 Winter in grades K-8

Data analyzed by staff

Where are we now…Culture of Collaboration• Staff meetings to share data and instructional

strategies• Department or Grade Level Meetings

• Established meeting protocol• Interpretation and examination of data• Problem solving and sharing instructional

strategies

Where are we now…Ensuring That All Students Succeed

Outcomes From Collaboration• K-Pals• Co-teaching• Training on Interventions• Progress Monitoring• Restructuring of Reading Support

Where we hope to go…

Consistent collaboration throughout the school year allowing us to progress monitor students and ensure success in student learning!

Models for Implementation

Month # of Half Days

August/ September 2

October 2

November 1

December 1

January 2

February 1

March 1

April 1

May 1

Half Day Option

Pros for Half Day Option

Somewhat frequent

Regularly scheduled

Job-embedded

Cons for Half Day Option

*Students dismissed before lunch/ no food service available for free/reduced lunch students

*Too long (3 + hours) to be considered true PLC

*Usually only 1x/month (not frequent enough)

*September meeting may be needed for organizational tasks, not allowing PLC activities

*Difficult to sustain progress of PLC because of time in between

Frequency may be challenging for families

Loss of food service revenue for schools

*None of these match the characteristics of PLC research

Month # of Days

August/September 2

October 2

November 2

December 2

January 2

February 2

March 2

April 2

May 2

June 1

2 Hour Option 2 Hours at 2x/Month- Early Release

Pros for Two Hour OptionSomewhat frequent

Regularly scheduled

Job-embedded

Keeps teachers connected to the tasks/ goals of the PLC

Fits with best practice- ideal length of time

Consistent schedule for teachers, kids and parents

Shorter times in between PLC’s allow for greater continuity and reflection

Kids would be fed breakfast and lunch before leaving

Revenue for district (food service)

Cons for Two Hour Option

No opportunity for extended learning throughout the year

May be a tough sell for parents – 19x’s

Early Release may be inconvenient for student athletes/families

June date may not be beneficial. May consider moving this to earlier in the school year.

Month # of Days Combination Time

August/ September 1 Full Day

1 2 Hours

October 2 2 Hours

November 1 2 Hours

December 2 2 Hours

January 2 2 Hours

February 1 Full Day

March 1 2 Hours

April 2 2 Hours

May 2 2 Hours

Combination Option(2 Hr. and Full Day)

Pros for Combination Option

Somewhat frequent

Regularly scheduled

Job-embedded

Full day offers opportunities to review/refocus at beginning

and mid-year

Most months offer opportunity of two PLC’s

Parents might like full days before February President’s

weekend

Full day provides time to meet for PLC’s and

building/district needs

12 rather than 19 times each year may be more supported

by parents

Provides time for part-time staff to meet across

grades/buildings

Cons for Combination Option

May be too infrequent

Full day would need to be carefully scheduled to make good use of time

Speakers or workshops scheduled on full day would need to correspond with job embedded work

Does the EL, MS, HS schedule have to be the same?Yes, why? No, why?

Older siblings (neighbors) babysit

Needs at each level are different

To avoid confusion for parents

Allows different grade levels to meet/plan

Traveling teachers and shared staff would all be available for PLC’s at same time

Economically makes more sense for transportation (same bus schedule)