|
| |
LPS Late-Start Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs)
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif)
LPS Professional Learning Communities
(PLCs):
- LPS
PLC definition: "It is an ongoing process that involves the collaborative,
cyclical analysis of data to develop, implement, and evaluate goals and
strategies to improve student achievement."
-
District officials emphasize the
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) initiative as the principal process
to address the District Achievement Goal.
-
Most schools have been using some
PLC concepts for years with little or no effect upon LPS student academic
achievement progress.
-
The effectiveness of the current
PLC model (two-hour late start on 10 PLC days per school year, beginning in
August, 2007) has not been determined.
-
LPS
expectations for PLC activities (according to the LPS PLCs website page):
“In PLC meetings, teachers answer four critical questions:
-
What is essential for students to learn?
-
How will we know when each student has learned it?
-
How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?
-
How will we respond when a student already knows it?”
The purposes of this
ICAN
website page are to critique some aspects of work done by the LPS Late Start
Review Panel (LSRP) and to ask questions related to the LSRP charge.
Nearly all of the contents of this website page came from a
four-page letter [PDF 41KB]
presented by citizen activist Sam Drury to the LPS Board of Education on June
12, 2008. Transparency
and prompt reporting of detailed objective results are essential for credible
public visibility and accountability.
The LSRP was identified as
a “Blue Ribbon Panel” when the Board approved the calendar change on February 8,
2007. The official charge to the LSRP has these four assignments (according to
the approved minutes of the May 8, 2008 Board of Education meeting):
- “To advise
District administration regarding the effectiveness of the late start model;
- to study impacts
of the embedded time calendar on students, parents, and school sites
(including considerations regarding child care availability and costs, student
safety, student supervision, transportation issues, and other identified
variables);
- to study other
calendar models in school districts; and
- to analyze
sufficiency of the amount of time in the approved model (ten days, two hours
each day).”
Some Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs) about PLCs (according to the LPS
PLCs FAQs website page):
- Q. “Is the
district sure that PLC’s are so valuable that it is worth changing the entire
school district’s schedule?
A. Yes. District Administration along with building principals and many
instructional staff remain committed to the PLC concept as a viable way to
increase student achievement.”
- Q. “Will the
meetings be structured?
A. The expectation is that the meetings focus on student achievement
data, planning for next steps based on the data, sharing of best practices and
research, setting SMART goals for PLC work, and monitoring and adjusting based
on progress toward goals. Structuring the PLC meetings is the responsibility
of the building principal.”
- Q. “What will
teachers do during PLC time?
A. Teachers will use this time to:
-
Analyze data gathered through a number of assessments students already take
as well as daily classroom work;
-
Use what the data tells them to guide their conversations, share their best
thinking and create strategies to help each child achieve more.”
- Q. “Who is going
to set the agenda for the 120 min. time period (for staff)?
A. There are district expectations about the outcome of PLC time. Each
building, however, is ultimately responsible for implementation.”
- Q. “What are
neighboring districts doing? (Cherry Creek and Jeffco, etc.)
A. We have done some research on the surrounding areas. Please see the
website for the PowerPoint charts that outline what other districts are
doing.”
- Q. “Will more
PLC meeting time make teachers better?
A. Based on the experiences in many other districts across the nation and
in Colorado, experience shows that this model improves student achievement.”
- Q. “Can’t we
just add PLC time by using subs?
A. No, the Board of Education and administration have a strong value on
minimizing the use of substitute teachers for PLC work. It is not in the best
interest of the children to increase the use of substitute time.”
- Q. “If there is
no calendar change, is it expected that the PLC work continue?
A. Building principals report that their belief in the concept is
strong. They will work to make sure that the initiative continues with the
limited time available.”
- Q. “Some
children may struggle with shifts in schedules.
A. There is already an amount of variability, so this might not present
an unworkable change.”
- Q. “If this
isn’t working, will you make a change? What will the measure be?
A. The ultimate measure will be progress toward the 2011 goal of 90%
student achievement. A matrix is being developed to quantify this progress in
reading, writing, and math, K-10. Administration will develop an
accountability plan that includes multiple measures.”
LPS officials have
established the Student Achievement Index as an overall expression of results
from assessments of individual students. The matrix includes Colorado Student
Assessment Program (CSAP), Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), and other
assessments.
With regard to the May 8,
2008 18-page “final” LSRP report [PDF
103KB] to the Board, here are some excerpts (with page-number references)
and our related comments:
The baseline effectiveness
of PLCs before the late-start calendar change is known:
- Most
schools have been using some PLC concepts for years with little or no effect
upon LPS student academic achievement progress.
- The
2007 results of CSAP, MAP, and other assessments are available.
The
effectiveness of the current PLC model (two-hour late start on 10 PLC days per
school year, beginning in August, 2007) has not yet been reported publicly.
- 2008 CSAP Grade 3
Reading “preliminary and unofficial” results are available.
- 2008 CSAP final
results will be available before August 1.
- Results of 2008
MAP and other 2008 assessments have been determined.
- Indicators of
site-based PLC process “maturity” are monitored by building principals but are
not transparent to parents.
We have some additional
comments and questions:
- The shutdown of
the LSRP is inconsistent with expectations for a “Blue Ribbon Panel” when the
Board approved the calendar change on February 8, 2007.
- The LSRP was shut
down before first-year, late-start results will be made public.
- Why did the LSRP
not address effectiveness of the late start model?
- Why did the LSRP
not study other calendar models in school districts?
- Which other
Colorado school districts have tried comparable districtwide “embedded PLCs”
and with what specific results?
- Which Colorado
school districts have dropped “embedded PLCs” and why?
- How well are
teachers answering the four critical questions in PLC meetings?
- How well are the
PLCs meeting other publicly-stated district expectations?
- When will the
2008 MAP assessment results be made public?
- When will the
2007 CSAP longitudinal growth data be made public?
- When will the
2008 CSAP assessment results be made public?
- When will other
preliminary indicators of the
effectiveness of the current LPS PLC model
be made public?
Last modified:
06/21/2008
|
