-
Evaluating PLCs
( 4 Articles )
Evaluating Professional Learning Communities Study concluded February 2009. Thank you to everyone involved including the GE Foundation our sponsor, Subject Matter Experts, project supporters, Best-Practice Partners, participating districts and schools. The study was a huge success thanks to everyone involved including Travis Colton the Project Manager.  WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT? Building off the best-practices discovered in the ‘Collaborative Cultures’ benchmarking project we will have a solid understanding of the reason WHY collaboration is so important and HOW it can be created and supported effectively. The next step is to answer the WHAT question…‘what can we use to actually collaborate in our district?’ Research and empirical evidence over the last four to five years tells us that Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) are a great answer to that question. But having an answer and actually implementing that answer are two very different endeavors.
The three main purposes of this benchmarking project are:
- Build on the work from the Collaborative Cultures project to develop a foundation of learning, collaboration, professionalism, and trust for PLCs to work.
- To identify real-world examples from districts across the nation that have designed, implemented, and maintained successful PLCs. Case studies, audio, and video examples of these practices will be available in our on-line community.
- In addition, we’ll begin to develop key outcome and performance measures that your district can use to monitor PLCs on an on-going basis and determine their overall success.
Back to Top WHO WERE THE BEST-PRACTICE PARTNERS?
Our partners include schools and organizations that have managed to create a collaborative environment using professional learning communitites. They will serve as exemplars throughout the project as they share their practices and experience in launching and maintaining PLCs. Adlai Stevenson High School District, IL
Blue Valley School District, KS
Calvert County Public Schools, MD
Clark County School District, NV
Fort Leavenworth Schools, KS
Freeport Intermediate School, TX
Granby Memorial High School, CT
Kildeer Countryside SD 96, IL
Montgomery County Public Schools, MD
Pioneer Middle School, CA
Rockwood School District, MO
Sanger Unified School District, CA
Schaumburg School District 54, IL WHAT OTHER DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS PARTICIPATED? Allen ISD, TX
Atlanta Public Schools, GA
Brevard Public Schools, FL
Carman-Ainsworth Community Schools, MI
Cedar Lane Elementary School, VA
Supported by Loudoun County Public Schools, VA
Chino Valley Unified School District, CA
Cincinnati Public Schools, OH
Cobb County School District, GA
Creekside High School, GA
Supported by Fulton County Schools, GA
Dekalb County School System, GA
Erie City School District, PA
Firebaugh High School, CA
Fulton Public Schools, GA
Harford County Public Schools, MD
Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL
Iredell-Statesville Schools, NC
Jefferson County Public Schools, KY
Jenifer Junior High School, ID
Supported by Lewiston ISD #1, ID
Jenks Public Schools, OK
Klein ISD, TX
Lamar CISD, TX
Lewiston ISD #1, ID
Loudoun County Public Schools, VA
Mesa Public Schools, AZ
Milwaukee Public Schools, WI
Montpelier Public Schools, VT
North Penn School District, PA
Park View High School, VA
Supported by Loudoun County Public Schools, VA
Pewaukee School District, WI
Plano ISD, TX
Rio Rancho Public Schools, NM
Rockwall ISD, TX
Sacajawea Junior High School, ID
Supported by Lewiston ISD #1, ID
School District of Waukesha,WI
Stamford Public Schools, CT
St. Paul Public Schools, MN
Stone Hill Middle Schoo, VA
Supported by Loudoun County Public Schools, VA
Stults Road Elementary, TX
Supported by Richardson ISD, TX
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District, CA
Tri-Cities High School, GA
Supported by Fulton County Schools, GA
Vancouver School District, WA
Westlake High School, GA
Supported by Fulton County Schools, GA
What areas were examined?- Design and Planning: This scope area will focus on how districts develop a framework for PLCs built on a culture of collaboration, quality learning opportunities, and aligned to school and district goals. What is the right mix of PLCs in terms of grade level and subject area? What are the core responsibilities of central office staff, principals, facilitators,and members?
- Implementation: This scope area will focus on how districts put their plans into place and the lessons they learned. How do you ensure the PLCs are focused on learning and not on operations? Are there time-allocation models that work well at various grade levels to ensure PLCs can occur during the work day? What type of training should be offered to prepare people to work effectively in their PLC?
- Support and Continuous Improvement: This scope area will focus on how to monitor, evaluate, and modify your PLCs.One of the biggest challenges facing high quality, job-embedded professional learning, is developing an evaluation framework that is non-intrusive and cost effective. See examples from districts that have developed mature evaluation protocols and improvement programs.
Who was behind the project?The GE Foundation has provided partial funding to allow APQC to work collaboratively with a number of national experts including the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) on this project. We’ll be fortunate to work with industry ‘gurus’ who have years of experience working with districts to implement and evaluate professional learning systems.
APQC, a 30-year old nonprofit organization located Houston, has conducted many such benchmarking studies and will use a methodology that has proved successful in education, business, health care, and government. Additional funding to support widespread participation across the nation will be obtained from districts and/or their sponsors.
We are fortunate to have experts and industry gurus help us focus this project. Special advisers assist in survey design, recommend best-practice districts, conduct Webcasts, and conduct presentations and breakout discussions at the final knowledge transfer session. - Ann Delehant – education consultant - The Dolan Group
- Dr. Richard P. DuFour – education consultant
- Dr. Shirley Hord – scholar laureate – National Staff Development Council
- Joellen Killion - deputy executive director – National Staff Development Council
- Ann Kilcher - education consultant - The Dolan Group
- Karl Clauset - director, Whole-Faculty Study Groups National Center
- Kirk Vandersall - managing director - Arroyo Research Services
There are four components: Data Collection: Through a written data collection survey, both quantitative and qualitative data and information will be collected from each participating district in the key processes involved in their districts. - Site Visits: APQC will conduct approximately five one-day, face-to-face site visits with best-practice districts throughout the course of this project. Participants will have an opportunity to visit the best-practice districts, meet their staff, ask questions, and actually see some of the programs currently underway. For those who cannot travel to the sites (as yet not selected), virtual components allow internal teams to listen to the site visit discussions. Valuable tacit knowledge can be obtained by these visits.
- Webcasts: Each best-practice partner will conduct a one-hour Webcast focusing on one of their unique strengths. For instance, if one of our best-practice partners has a very strong professional development system around data training (or an innovative use of technology), that district might conduct a Webcast concentrating on their policies and procedures in that area. There is no limit to the number of attendees at each Webcast.
- Knowledge Transfer Session (KTS): This is the final event in the project. It is a two-day event held at APQC in Houston. Subject matter experts and APQC staff conduct breakouts and presentations based on survey results and key findings. Participants have the opportunity to network with colleagues from across the nation and develop long lasting relationships. Best-practice districts will participate in roundtable discussions, and APQC will facilitate activities for each district to develop action plans to take the results from the study and utilize them in their own districts.
Back to Top
-
D3M
( 5 Articles )
Purpose: The momentum behind building high-quality data systems to harvest better information about student, school, and district performance has never been stronger. Although collecting data is essential, knowing how to analyze and apply this information is just as important for meeting the end goal of improving student achievement. The purpose of this project was to identify, quantify, and report on district-level processes that enable effective utilization of data to increase academic achievement at the classroom level. Objectives: Project scoping incorporates input from those participating in the project, but will likely address these primary objectives. - Identify best practices in the collection, analysis, and utilization of student performance data.
- Develop a process approach that links together all key staff members and stakeholders involved in data collection, analysis, and utilization.
- Develop a common set of performance measures that can be used to benchmark and evaluate their district’s current data collection, analysis, and utilization processes.
- Learn innovative practices in the dissemination of student data.
- Examine what unique or commercial programs, technologies, IT platforms, software applications, and other tools are being used in support of data-driven decision making in successful districts.
- Learn what leading districts are measuring around student performance data and how they are gathering those metrics.
Components and Timeline:The D3M project concluded July 2008. Scope:Data Collection - This scope area focuses on how districts collect and aggregate data from (often disparate) data sources.
Data Management and Data Analysis - This scope area focuses on how districts maintain and analyze their existing data. Although this area of the study includes some aspects of technology, it concentrates on the policies and practices concerning data management/analysis.
Culture - This scope area focuses on cultural aspects that promote data-use. In an ideal scenario, data should shape conversations, meetings, and strategic plans within a district.
Implementation - This final scope area focuses on how data-driven decision making is actually being implemented.
Over 70 districts from across the country joined this project to make it a successful benchmarking study.
|
