Running head: PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY 1

A Study of the Effectiveness of Professional Learning Communities

at Gretchko Elementary School
Thomas R. DeGrand, Sally A. Drummond, Gregory D. Ristau, and Dianne M. Shepich
Lindson Feun, Ph.D.
Oakland University
April 15, 2016

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements4
Abstract..5
Chapter 16
Introduction
Overview
Background
Assumptions and Limitations
Evaluation/Research Questions
Chapter 29
Review of Literature
Chapter 3..15
Method of the Study
Overview
Selection of the Subjects
Research Design
Description of Instruments
Data Analysis
Summary
Chapter 4..19
Results of the Study
Triangulation of Data
Teacher Survey Results
Summary
Quantitative Data Analysis
Qualitative Data Analysis
Conclusion
Discrepancies
Limitations

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

PLC Observation Chart
Summary
Kindergarten PLC
First grade PLC
Conclusion
Discrepancies
Limitations
Student Survey Results
Summary
Discrepancies
Limitations
F & P Reading Assessment Data
Summary
Discrepancies
Limitations
Writing Assessment Data
Summary
Discrepancies
Limitations
Chapter 5..35
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overview
Conclusions
Recommendations
Implications for Future Research
References39
Appendices...42

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Acknowledgements
The researchers would like to thank a number of individuals that assisted in the
successful completion of this action research. First, we would like to thank our families for their
support, flexibility, and understanding as it relates to the time spent researching, collaborating,
and completing the project as a team. Next we would like to thank Dr. Lindson Feun for his
guidance and support that he has provided during the past two years of our research. His
knowledge and expertise regarding action research allowed our team to learn and grow
successfully throughout the process. A special thank you is also extended to the staff and
students at Gretchko Elementary in West Bloomfield, Michigan. Our action research team
appreciated their willingness to open their doors to our inquiries, and cannot express enough
gratitude for the time, data, and honest feedback that was provided to our team. A final thank
you goes out to our Bloomfield Cohort. This was a long process that was made easier by the
support and feedback that you provided during our time together.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Abstract
The purpose of this action research project was to determine the level to which Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) had been implemented at Gretchko Elementary, and to evaluate
their effectiveness in improving student achievement in reading and writing. The following
paper will guide readers through the process the team created and followed throughout the
research. This includes the inquiry question that drove the research, a description of the plan,
school, and participants, the results of the study, and a summary of the research that includes
recommendations for future actions. In addition to presenting the findings of the research, this
project will also be used to provide the staff at Gretchko with feedback regarding the success of
PLCs at their school. This information is intended to be used for professional development with
the staff at Gretchko, so that they can continue to develop their PLCs and further improve
student achievement in the areas of reading and writing.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Chapter 1
Introduction
Overview
According to Saunders and Goldenberg (2009), Significant achievement gains were
achieved when grade-level teams were provided with consistent meeting times, school-wide
instructional leadership, and explicit protocols that focused meeting times on students needs and
how they might be instructionally addressed (p. 1007). For this reason, Professional Learning
Communities (PLCs) have become the norm at many schools over the last several years. The
days of teachers closing their doors and working in isolation have given way to a more
collaborative culture where teachers work together to help students achieve their learning goals.
There are three big ideas regarding Professional Learning Communities; there must be a
focus on learning, a collaborative culture, and a focus on results (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, &
Many, 2006). Student achievement demonstrated by high levels of learning should be the
primary focus for all schools. Knowing what we want students to learn, as well as having ways
to assess, intervene, and accelerate, provides a foundation for keeping the focus on
learning. Having a collaborative culture ensures that teachers will no longer work independently
behind closed doors. It also creates an environment that provides the time and structure for
teachers to work together. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) state, Schools improve
when teachers are given the time and support to work together to clarify essential student
learning, develop common assessments for learning, analyze evidence of student learning, and
use that evidence to learn from one another. PLCs provide that time for teachers to achieve
those goals, keeping the focus on student learning and results.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Background
A team of four Oakland University students in the Bloomfield Hills Education Specialist
Cohort conducted this action research project. Comprised of educators from diverse professional
backgrounds, this group consisted of one classroom teacher, one teacher leader, and two school
administrators. As a group, it was decided that one elementary school that had implemented
PLCs would be the focus of this study.
Gretchko Elementary School in the West Bloomfield School District was the school
chosen to be the focus of this research. Located in Oakland County, Michigan, West Bloomfield
School District has five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. Gretchko
Elementary is a K-1 school that has 400 students and a 17% free and reduced lunch population.
In 2006, Gretchko began its PLC journey when the building administrator and teacher
leaders decided to attend conferences to learn more about Professional Learning
Communities. The team brought their learning back to the building to share with the staff, with
the goal of implementing PLCs in kindergarten, first grade, and special education beginning with
the 2006-2007 school year. To date, the PLCs are assessed each year for effectiveness, and are
refined as needed. The resulting growth is based on changes needed to support continued student
learning and success.
Assumptions and Limitations
The team of researchers assumed that the staff and students at Gretchko Elementary
would complete the surveys that were provided, and would be honest with the answers that they
submitted. It was also assumed that student achievement data would be provided to the research
team.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

One of the limitations of the research was that the staff at Gretchko may have been
hesitant to answer survey questions honestly as the building administrator was a member of the
action research team. Another was that Gretchko was the only elementary school that was part
of the PLC research, limiting the scope of the findings and recommendations that resulted from
the study. A final limitation was a result of using assessment data for the entire school
population. In doing so, there was not a control group to use for comparisons.
Evaluation/Research Questions
The questions researched were:
1. To what extent has the PLC process been implemented in kindergarten at Gretchko
Elementary?
a. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the kindergarten PLC?
b. What are the kindergarten staff opinions about the extent to which PLCs have been
implemented?
2. To what extent has the PLC process been implemented in first grade at Gretchko
Elementary?
a. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the first grade PLC?
b. What are the first grade staff opinions about the extent to which PLCs have been
implemented?
3. How effective has the kindergarten PLC been at improving student achievement in
English Language Arts?
4. How effective has the first grade PLC been at improving student achievement in English
Language Arts?

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Quality teaching requires strong professional learning communities. Collegial
interchange, not isolation, must become the norm for teachers. Communities of learning can no
longer be considered utopian; they must become the building blocks that establish a new
foundation for Americas schools (National Commission on Teaching, as cited in DuFour &
Eaker, 2004, p. 1). Teachers are being asked to ensure high levels of learning for all students.
Our earlier works present the premise that the Professional Learning Community (PLC) offers
the most powerful conceptual model for transforming schools to meet their new challenges
(DuFour & Eaker, 2004, p. 2). This review of literature will indicate that Professional Learning
Communities, if conducted correctly, can aide in the student achievement of schools. DuFour
and Eaker (2004) state:
When teachers work together to develop curriculum that delineates the essential
knowledge and skills each student is to acquire, when they create frequent common
assessments to monitor each students learning on a timely basis, when they collectively
analyze results from those assessments to identify strengths and weaknesses, and when
they help each other develop and implement strategies to improve current levels of
student learning, they are engaged in the kind of professional development that builds
teacher capacity and sustains school improvement. (p. 63)
DuFour and Eaker (1998) authored the book, Professional Learning Communities at
Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement, and in doing so, maintained the
premise that the most promising strategy for substantive school improvement was growing the
teachers capacity to function as a PLC. We were able to strengthen that argument by citing the

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

consensus of leading researchers from within and outside of education who agreed that the
characteristics of a professional learning community are essential to the sustained improvement
of any organization (DuFour & Eaker, 2002, p. 1).
A study by the Rand Corporation (McLaughlin, 1990) of change efforts in schools across
the nation reinforced the concept of creating an environment conducive to school reform.
Among the organizational factors that were found to support improvement efforts were collegial
relationships, organizational structures that promote open communication and feedback, and
leadership that promotes opportunities for professional growth (DuFour & Eaker, 1992,
p. 20). These three factors are the basis of the Professional Learning Community.
Wells and Feun (2007) describe the need for schools to provide more than professional
development; schools should focus on two areas of staff development: structural improvements
and changes in content. Structural changes involve the process of transitioning from educators
working alone to becoming learning communities; cultural content changes involve teacher
behaviors associated with change and the reflective, deeper analyses of teaching and learning or
the ways that the professionals discuss student achievement (Wells & Feun, 2007, p. 143).
In their work, Successful School Restructuring, Newmann and Wehlage (1995, p. 3)
firmly link the effective habits/efforts of teachers to student achievement.
The most successful schools were those that used restructuring tools to help them
function as professional communities. That is, they found a way to channel staff and
students toward a clear, commonly shared purpose for student learning; they created
opportunities for teachers to collaborate and help one another achieve the purpose; and
teachers in these schools took collective-not just individual-responsibility for student
learning. Schools with strong professional communities were better able to offer

10

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

authentic pedagogy and were more effective in promoting student achievement. (as cited
in Lambert, 1998, p. 11)
These Professional Learning Communities are places in which educators develop a shared sense
of purpose, participate in decision making, work collaboratively and accept joint responsibility
for the outcomes of their work.
Blankstein (2010) believes that a PLC includes: 1) reflective dialogue among teachers, 2)
deprivatization of practice, 3) collective focus on student learning, 4) collaboration amongst
teachers, and 5) shared norms and values (adapted from Kruse et al., 1994, p. 76). McLaughlin,
Mullen, and Schunk state, For more than a decade, a growing confluence of research and
practice has indicated that our best hope for success in schools is through the creation of PLCs
(as cited in Blankstein, 2010, p. 73). The focus on student learning and not on teachers teaching
is the goal of the PLC. There are four driving questions to guide the PLC practice:
1) What do we want students to learn?
2) How will we know when they learn it?
3) What will we do if they dont learn it?
4) What will we do if they already know it?
A study was conducted in Texas over a five year period with five economically
disadvantaged and diverse elementary schools, to determine if the development of the Five
Dimensions of Professional Learning Communities impacted student achievement. These
schools had earned an Acceptable rating in 2004, and upon implementation of PLCs five years
later, they earned a performance rating of Exemplary. The Five Dimensions are: 1) shared and
supportive leadership, 2) shared values and vision, 3) collective learning and the application of

11

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

learning, 4) shared personal practice, and 5) supportive conditions (collegial relationships and
structures). The author of the article, Blacklock (2009), wrote:
The findings from this study suggest that sustainable professional learning communities
are evident in the high performing schools selected for this study. The study implies the
culture of these schools is supported by relationships fostered by trust and mutual respect
and their success is attributed to the collaborative, collegial and collective learning of the
staff. Staff members from these schools are focused on student learning while campus
leadership, grade level and vertical teams provide the structure for sharing leadership and
collective learning. The principals in these schools engage in supportive behaviors that
facilitate professional community while districts assist schools as professional learning
communities in part through organized data and resource personnel. (p. 1)
Another study was conducted in California in 2007-2008 utilizing a survey of 231
principals of elementary schools. The principals rated their School Professional Staff as a
Learning Community. Academic growth of elementary students was measured by the
difference between Californias Academic Performance Index (API) scores in the spring of 2007
and spring of 2008. The researcher, Schroeder (2009) states:
I found a positive correlation between the principals ratings of their schools as PLCs for
the Total Survey Score and API growth. The correlation between each of the five
subscales and API growth was also significant. Items assessed whether the staff learned
from each other, worked on student-centered educational issues, discussed the quality of
teaching and students learning, made and implemented plans with a focus on students
needs, and assessed the impact of its actions and made suggested revisions. (p. 1)

12

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Johnson (2011) conducted a study on the impact of PLCs on urban teachers and their
students reading and math achievement. The purpose of the study was to determine if students
reading and math achievement improved as a result of weekly collaboration among
teachers. There were statistically significant variations at all levels in achievement upon
implementing PLCs. Significant increases from 2006-2010 were represented in mean percent
passing and commended performance for the elementary, middle, and high schools (p. 1).
Alvich (2011) conducted a study to determine if the implementation of PLCs would
increase student writing achievement. Study findings revealed that with adequate environmental
support, collaboration among the members of the PLC is facilitated which leads to enhanced
instruction and improved learning (p. 1). Smith (2010) conducted a study in Maryland of Title
One elementary buildings to determine if there was a relationship between PLCs and student
achievement as measured on the Maryland School Assessment (MSA). This study advances
social change in that it adds to current research on effective practices related to the
implementation of PLCs and their impact on student achievement (p. 1).
Conca and Stoltz (2014) conducted a study entitled Reading Cross-Training: Meeting
the Challenges of the Common Core with Common Instructional Routines for Readers of All
Ages, in Bloomfield, Connecticut and concluded that educators now recognize that increased
literacy levels occur when adults first adjust their belief system about their collective
responsibility to be teachers of reading and then adapt instructional practices common to all
students district-wide, kindergarten through grade 12 (p. 1).

As a result of a reflective process,

teachers in Bloomfield, Connecticut believe in the importance of working together. This

fundamental change in belief systems has impacted student achievement in reading. Following a
four-year-decline in state testing, reading scores began to trend upward in 2011. Progress

13

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

towards closing the reading achievement gap between state and district performance has been
substantial. Through coordinated and collaborative efforts utilizing PLCs, the district closed the
achievement gap in reading by exceeding the state average by 1% in 2013.
McLaughlin and Talbert state, Students learning experiences...with weak teaching
cultures are akin to an instructional lottery, in which their learning opportunities depend heavily
on which teachers they draw, from class to class and year to year (as cited in DuFour & Eaker,
2004, p. 29). Additionally, Boyer states:
Community begins with a shared vision. Its sustained by teachers who, as school
leaders, bring inspiration and direction to the institution. Who after all, knows more about
the classroom? Who is better able to inspire children? Who can evaluate, more
sensitively, the educational progress of each student? And who but teachers create a true
community for learning? Teachers are, without question, the heartbeat of a successful
school. (as cited in DuFour and Eaker, 1998, p. 205)
As you can see, many researchers believe that a strong Professional Learning Community
model in operation can systematically engage in continuous improvement and professional
growth.

14

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Chapter 3
Method of the Study
Overview
The purpose of the study was to determine the levels that PLCs have been implemented
at Gretchko Elementary. In addition to this determination, the study was also designed to assess
how effective PLCs have been at increasing kindergarten and first grade student achievement.
The study was conducted by collecting data using surveys, observations, and analysis of
student assessments. Surveys were administered to the staff at Gretchko using Google Forms,
while a paper and pencil Likert scale survey was used for students. Action team researchers
were able to observe the PLC teams in action at Gretchko, and Fountas & Pinnell reading
assessments and Oakland Schools writing assessment rubrics were used to measure student
achievement. Consent forms for the study can be found in Appendix A.
Selection of the Subjects
The research team decided to utilize the entire population at Gretchko Elementary
because of its size. With a small staff and 400 students, it was feasible to survey all of the
stakeholders. Being a small building also gave the researchers the opportunity to use all of the
students assessment scores for the study as well. Gretchko Elementary is a K-1 elementary
school situated in West Bloomfield, Michigan in northern Oakland County. Gretchko currently
has a 36% school of choice population and 17% of the students participate in the free and
reduced breakfast and lunch program. Of the 400 students, 70% are white, 18% are African
American, 5.5% are Asian, 5.5% are multi-racial, and 1% are Hispanic. The kindergarten class
had 215 students; 118 were male and 97 were female. The first grade class had 185 students;
111 were male and 74 were female. Of the 400 students, 10% receive English as a second

15

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

language services, and the primary language of the students is Chaldean. All of the staff are
white, with one male teacher and the rest being female classroom teachers.
Research Design
The PLCs at Gretchko Elementary were evaluated during the 2014-2015 school
year. Beginning that fall, assessment data were collected for all kindergarten and first grade
students. This included Fountas & Pinnell reading assessments and Oakland Schools writing
pre-assessments. A student perception survey was also given to students that fall. It was
administered in class by the classroom teachers.
In May of 2015, members of the action research team visited Gretchko Elementary and
observed PLCs in action. During the observations of each PLC, notes were recorded using an
observed or not observed chart that was created to identify the strengths and weaknesses of
individual teams. This document included a list of indicators for PLCs that action team members
were looking for during their observations. Later that same month, surveys were given to all
staff members to collect data regarding staff perceptions of PLC implementation, as well as their
strengths and weaknesses. The survey was created using Google Forms and the link was shared
via email. The staff was asked to complete the survey by the end of that week.
Finally, at the end of May 2015, student achievement data were collected a second time
to identify areas of growth. Fountas & Pinnell reading assessments were collected and compared
to the fall scores, and Oakland Schools writing post-assessments were compared to the students
fall writing pre-assessments. A second student perception survey was also administered to
determine how their attitudes about reading and writing had changed over the course of the year.

16

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Description of Instruments
The research team used five different instruments to collect data. One instrument was a
survey created for the staff using Google Forms. This survey asked staff members to describe
the level to which PLCs had been implemented at Gretchko, and gave them an opportunity to
identify strengths and weaknesses. The second was a Likert Scale survey that was created on
paper and consisted of two questions for the students at Gretchko. Each student was asked to
assess their attitudes toward reading and writing. The third data collection instrument was
Fountas & Pinnell reading assessments that were completed for each student. These assessments
identified the levels that each student was currently reading. A fourth data collection instrument
was the Plus/Delta chart that was completed during observations. These charts gave researchers
guidance in identifying strengths and weaknesses that they observed when sitting in on the PLC
meetings. The final instrument was the rubric provided by Oakland Schools for the writing preand post-assessments. These rubrics provided scores for different areas of each students
writing, as well as a holistic score that assessed the entire piece.
Data Analysis
Researchers first collected student achievement data in the fall to identify a baseline
reading and writing score for each kindergarten and first grade student. The fall student survey
was another instrument utilized to determine student attitudes about reading and writing as they
entered the 2014-2015 school year. Observations made by the researchers during their visits
were compared to the results from the staff surveys completed in the spring. This was helpful in
terms of how an outsider viewed Gretchko PLCs compared to how the staff described them. At
the end of the school year, student achievement data were collected once again and compared to
the baseline data from the fall. This provided researchers with a tool to measure the students

17

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

growth in reading and writing. The spring student perception survey also allowed researchers to
identify any attitude changes that the students experienced over the course of the year.
Summary
Through careful research and planning, the action research team was able to design a
study that measured the level to which PLCs had been implemented at Gretchko Elementary, and
how effective they were at increasing student achievement. Staff surveys and observations of
PLCs in action identified these implementation levels and provided feedback about the PLC
strengths and suggestions for improvement. Collecting assessment and perception data from
students allowed the research team to determine the amount of growth students made in reading
and writing, as well as how their attitudes changed over the course of the study. Integrating
technology, along with multiple measures of data, provided the researchers with an efficient way
to collect all of the data over the course of the school year. Overall, the method of study proved
beneficial in determining the information needed to complete the action research project.

18

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Chapter 4
Results of the Study
Triangulation of Data
This study of the effectiveness of PLCs at Gretchko Elementary involved five sources of
data. The first data source was a teacher survey created on Google Forms and completed by
kindergarten and first grade teachers in the spring of 2015. The survey involved mostly Likert
scale questions (quantitative date) and two open response questions (qualitative data). This
survey was given to gather information about how the two grade-level PLCs operate and how the
teachers view the effectiveness of their grade-level PLCs.
The second data source included the observations of the kindergarten and first grade PLC
meetings from the spring of 2015. One member of the action research team observed the
kindergarten PLC while the other member observed the first grade. Both researchers used the
same observation chart, which included predetermined PLC components with an area to note
whether they were observable or not. This qualitative data source gave the researchers
information about the observed components of the two grade-level PLCs. This information was
used to find a correlation between effective PLCs and the components of their team meetings.
The third data source was a student perception survey that included two questions, one
regarding reading and the other about writing. The questions were in the form of a simplified
Likert scale, giving us quantitative data. This survey was given to all kindergarten and first
grade students in the fall of 2014 and again in the spring of 2015. This allowed the research
team to compare the growth in students perceptions in the areas of reading and writing.
The fourth data source was the kindergarten and first grade Fountas and Pinnell reading
assessment data from the fall of 2014 and the spring of 2015. The Fountas and Pinnell reading

19

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

assessment is a widely-used, research-based, common assessment that helps track student
reading levels and identify areas of strengths and weaknesses. This quantitative data allowed the
team to compare the fall scores with the spring scores to determine the amount of reading growth
in both grade levels throughout the 2014-2015 school year.
The fifth and final data source was the kindergarten and first grade writing assessment
data. These writing assessments came from the Oakland Schools narrative writing units that are
utilized in the West Bloomfield School District. This quantitative data allowed the research team
to compare the fall scores with the spring scores to determine the amount of narrative writing
growth in both grade levels throughout the 2014-2015 school year.
Teacher Survey Results
Summary. The teacher survey, found in Appendix B, was completed by all 14 teachers
in kindergarten (six) and first grade (eight). A total of 100% of the teachers responded that their
grade-level team meets for PLC once per week, with an average meeting time of 30 minutes.
The majority of the survey used a Likert scale rating of 1-3. The research team considered 3s
to be positive responses and 1s to be negative responses. A rating of 2 was considered neutral.
Of the six Likert scale questions, the most positive and/or negative responses obtained are
highlighted below.
Quantitative Data Analysis.

A total of 100% of the teachers felt that collaboration has been implemented a lot in their
PLC.

A total of 100% of the teachers felt the use of common assessments has been
implemented a lot in their PLC.

20

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

A total of 92.9% of the teachers felt they receive administrative support a lot at their
PLC.

A total of 100% of the teachers felt their PLC analyzes and utilizes data a lot at their
meetings.

A total of 78.6% of teachers felt they are provided sufficient time to hold their PLC
meetings. (Meanwhile, 21.4% felt they are provided some time to hold their meetings.)

A total of 100% of the teachers felt their PLC has been creating SMART goals a lot for
intervention.
Qualitative Data Analysis. The action research team also pulled qualitative data from the

teacher survey in the form of written responses teachers provided when asked two open response
questions. The first question asked them to list strengths of their grade-level PLC. The second
question asked for areas they felt their grade-level PLC could improve.
Strengths of your grade-level PLC. Below, the team has highlighted some of the
strengths teachers responded with on the survey. The complete results of the open response
section from the teacher survey can be found in Appendix C.

Teachers are determined to find ways to help students learn through the use of various
evidence and research-based interventions, and are eager to share with colleagues so that
all students can experience success.

We collaborate efficiently and are able to quickly pinpoint the needs of our students.
We use our Smart Goals to drive our instruction for our small groups and individual
needs, and often this can lead to better whole group instruction. Additionally, we are able
to make great instructional choices earlier in the year based on SMART goal decisions
from the previous year.

21

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

High level of collaboration and analysis of data. We have worked hard to use multiple
sources of data to implement interventions for students.

Everyone has a role, everyone respects each other, everyone has a common goalto
improve student data!

This time together allows us to collaborate on student learning and discuss common
assessments and other concerns.

Collaborative, goal oriented, effective!

Our PLC is very good at collaborating and making informed decisions to guide our
instruction.
Areas of improvement for your grade-level PLC. Below, the team has highlighted some

of the responses from teachers regarding areas to improve.

I believe that we could continue to improve our SMART Goals by focusing on the
smaller steps to (get to) the bigger picture.

I would like to see us leave a few additional minutes to reflect (on) one key area to focus
on for our upcoming agenda for the next week. We always have so many things that need
to be discussed and I would like to see those ideas narrowed down for a deeper
discussion.

We had a lot of SMART goals. There were almost too many small goals to keep track
of. I think broader (big picture) goals would make data collection easier.

More time to work on common assessments and to possibly meet with other grade levels
across the district!

This year we met with K PLC once per month and I would like to continue that!

Have more time to share teaching strategies that are successful within our classroom.

22

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Focus on one thing fully and not try to squeeze 2 things in.
Conclusion. The teacher survey data show an abundance of positive teacher perceptions

regarding the operation and effectiveness of the grade-level PLCs at Gretchko Elementary. It
appears they feel the elements of an effective PLC, as stated by DuFour & Eaker (1998), are
present in their grade-level teams. They mentioned many strengths, including: the use of
research-based interventions, utilization of SMART goals, data analysis, a true team atmosphere,
and a common goal of improving student achievement. Their areas of improvement contained
some common themes, such as: focusing their attention on less SMART goals but at a deeper
level, meeting with other grade-level PLCs (across grade levels and/or across the district), and
reserving more time to share instructional strategies. The only area of slight concern found
throughout the survey is the aspect of time. The administrator and/or district may want to look at
how to embed PLCs into their work day in a manner that allows for sufficient time to reach their
team goals, while also tending to their contractual agreement.
Discrepancies. There were no discrepancies found in this data source.
Limitations. The teacher survey includes some limitations. First, the survey was sent
out to all teachers, both kindergarten and first grade. Therefore, the data the team received from
this source were a combination of the two grade levels. Though the survey captured grade level,
allowing a comparison between the two groups, it was not reasonable to compare any possible
discrepancies in the data between grade levels due to the limited number of teachers surveyed.
As a result, the findings are limited to making conclusions about the teachers at Gretchko
Elementary as a whole instead of as separate grade levels. In addition, the conclusions from this
survey are limited to only the kindergarten and first grade teachers at Gretchko Elementary. The

23

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

team was not able to generalize this information as the perceptions of the teachers in the West
Bloomfield School District or elsewhere.
PLC Observation Chart
Summary. Two members of the action research team had the opportunity to observe a
kindergarten PLC and a first grade PLC. The researchers used an observation chart that allowed
them to note whether or not predetermined elements of a PLC were taking place. They had room
to make notes in the Observable column and the Not Observable column. This gave the
research team qualitative data about what actually takes place during a grade levels PLC
meeting. Some of the key elements observed during the meetings are highlighted below, as well
as elements that were not observed. See Appendices D and E for the actual charts used for the
observations.
Kindergarten PLC.
Observable elements:

All members had assigned roles (evidence of collaboration)

All members engaged and participating (evidence of collaboration)

Discussed math facts SMART goal (common assessments discussed/SMART

goals embedded in meeting)

Principal in attendance (evidence of administrative support)

Discussed holistically about kids understanding content or not (discuss and use
student data)

Meeting duration of 25 minutes (sufficient time provided)

Norms displayed on agenda; team prepared and on time; team focused (norms
established, displayed, and followed)

24

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Agenda provided, followed, and prepared for the following week (agenda is
created and followed)

Notes were taken throughout the meeting (minutes are taken)

Elements not observable:

No data were actually discussed (discuss and use student data)

Half of group talking with neighbor (on topic, whispered); sidebars occurred a
few times; facilitator brought team back together after about 30 seconds (norms
established, displayed, and followed)

First grade PLC.

Observable elements:

All team members participating (elements of collaboration)

Word Features and end of year math assessment discussed (common assessments
discussed)

Principal in attendance (evidence of administrative support)

Discussed Word Features data; best interventions (discuss and use student data)

Discussed Word Features SMART goal (SMART goals embedded in meeting)

Norms were established and displayed

Followed a created agenda and stayed on track most of the time

Minutes were taken

Elements not observable:

Did not appear to have sufficient time to complete agenda items (sufficient time
provided)

25

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Got slightly off track with sound-box phonics discussion but got back on track
quickly (agenda is created and followed)

Conclusion. As you can see in the highlighted notes above from the two PLCs
observed, these two grade levels are highly effective, well-oiled machines when it comes to
PLCs. They are very structured and have a focus on student achievement at all times. If they
were not discussing student data, then they were discussing common assessments, SMART
goals, or effective teaching strategies in various curriculum areas. No negativity was apparent,
and team members truly worked as a team. They all had a niche to fill within their groups, and
they filled that role at a high level. All members participated, were engaged, and worked with
the common goal in mindstudent achievement. It is clear that PLCs have been running for
many years in this school. The veteran teachers must be paving the path for the new teachers.
Even the elements not observed, such as following the norms and agenda (i.e. getting off topic a
few times), were quickly corrected by the facilitators. This school is truly made up of
professionals.
Discrepancies. There were no discrepancies found in this data source.
Limitations. The main limitation with this data source is the fact that it was derived
from observations of only two meetingsone kindergarten and one first grade. What occurred
during those two meetings may not be what occurs on a weekly basis. However, after speaking
with the administrator from Gretchko, it appears as though what was observed is a common
occurrence during the PLC meetings. Despite the limited observations, the research team was
still able to gather some useful qualitative data regarding what takes place during the
kindergarten and first grade PLCs. Triangulating this data source with the other data sources
paints a clear picture about the effectiveness of PLCs at Gretchko Elementary.

26

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

27

Student Survey Results

Summary. The student perception survey, found in Appendix F, gave the research team
data regarding the growth in students confidence in the areas of reading and writing. It asked
two questions:
1. I am a good reader.
2. I am a good writer.
Two tables with the results of the survey can be found below. Visual representations using bar
graphs that track the progression of student perception data in the areas of reading and writing by
grade level can also be found in Appendix G.
Table 1
Perception Data for Kindergarten Students
I am a good

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Reader

82% (115)

84% (104)

13% (18)

14% (17)

5% (7)

2% (3)

Writer

83% (99)

80% (106)

14% (17)

16% (21)

3% (3)

4% (6)

Note: (n) = number of students responding

Table 2
Perception Data for First Grade Students
I am a good

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Reader

85% (110)

92% (120)

13% (17)

8% (11)

2% (3)

0% (0)

Writer

82% (109)

81% (106)

16% (22)

18% (24)

2% (2)

1% (1)

Note: (n) = number of students responding

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

As you can see in the data tables on the previous page, the students at Gretchko
Elementary are overall very confident in the areas of reading and writing. In the area of reading,
a 2% increase in positive perception was seen in kindergarten, and a 7% increase was seen in
first grade. Additionally, a 3% decrease in negative perception was observed in kindergarten,
while a 2% decrease was observed in first grade (with 0% of the students in first grade stating a
negative feeling regarding their reading skills). You will notice that the positive perception
percentages are higher in first grade than in kindergarten, and the negative perception
percentages are lower in first grade than in kindergarten. This may be a result of having a years
worth of instruction in the area of reading when they enter first grade. Lastly, it is interesting to
note that students are coming into kindergarten at Gretchko with an 82% positive perception of
reading, and leaving first grade at Gretchko with a 92% positive perception (0% negative) of
reading. Students are leaving Gretchko feeling very confident about their reading.
In the area of writing, there were some concerning results. In kindergarten, students fell
from an 83% positive perception of writing to an 80%. In first grade, students fell from an 82%
positive perception of writing to an 81%. What could have caused this? Is the writing
curriculum too challenging, thus harming the students confidence? Is the higher positive
perception percentage in reading due to reading being more developmentally appropriate at this
age level? Are PLCs not addressing the area of writing with the diligence they are putting forth
into reading? These data are evidence that the PLCs of Gretchko Elementary will need to focus
their attention on the area of writing as they move forward.
Discrepancies. There were no discrepancies in the student perception survey data, with
the exception that it would be expected that students confidence in writing would improve with
instruction. However, the data suggest otherwise. For example, there was a decrease of 3% in

28

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

positive perceptions for kindergarten, and a decrease of 1% for first grade. Due to the fact that
this was a survey for kindergarteners and first graders, there may be many variables present that
may have caused that decrease. This will be discussed further in the limitations section below.
Limitations. While the research team believed these student perception data gave
quality data regarding students confidence levels in the areas of reading and writing, they also
understood there may have been some limitations encountered. First, the survey was testing how
the students felt as a reader and a writer. For young students, their answers may have been
affected based on how their day was going, the teachers ability to build their confidence, and/or
the parental support they were receiving at home. A student may have felt s/he was a good
reader/writer, but they may have actually been below grade level (and vice versa). The study
was looking at the effectiveness of PLCs on student achievement in reading and writing. This
perception data did not actually give any information about the students actual achievement in
reading and writing. It simply showed how the students confidence levels increased/decreased
throughout the school year. While the team believes student confidence is a factor in their
success in school, it is not a critical element in determining the effectiveness of PLCs on student
achievement in language arts.
Other limitations in this study include random error and reliability. For random error, it
could have been a contributing factor in the differences found in the student survey results. Such
errors could include not understanding the questions due to their young age, or not answering the
questions accurately, also due to their young age. In the area of reliability, a survey made up of
only two questions presented a limitation as to how much data could be reliably pulled from the
survey.

29

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

F&P Reading Assessment Data
Summary. The Fountas & Pinnell reading assessment is a common assessment given to
all students in the West Bloomfield School District. This assessment measures whether a student
is above, at, or below grade level for reading according to a given scale. It is used to measure the
growth in reading for a child, as well as to identify his/her strengths and weaknesses. The table
below summarizes the results of the assessment for kindergarten and first grade from the fall of
2014 and the spring of 2015. A visual representation using a bar graph that tracks the reading
growth for both grade levels can be found in Appendix H.
Table 3
Gretchko F&P Reading Data 2014-2015
Grade

Kindergarten
First Grade

Fall 2014
% At or
% Below
Above Grade
Grade Level
Level
56% (118)
44% (92)
75% (141)

25% (47)

Spring 2015
% At or
% Below
Above Grade
Grade Level
Level
85% (179)
15% (31)
94% (178)

6% (10)

Note: (n) = number of students assessed

The table above exemplifies the tremendous work that the teachers at Gretchko
Elementary have been doing with their students. Over the course of one academic year, the
kindergarten students went from 56% being at or above grade level in reading to 85% - a growth
of 29%. The first grade students went from 75% being at or above grade level to 94% - a growth
of 19%. Additionally, when looking at the entry point for kindergartners (56% at or above grade
level) compared to the exit point for first graders (94% at or above grade level), a growth is
indicated of nearly 40% during their tenure at Gretchko. This represents incredible student
achievement in reading. The PLCs will want to continue focusing their attention on those

30

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

students below grade level so they can reach the ultimate goal of having 100% of their students
at or above grade level.
The only area of concern the research team found in the data is the drop in percentage
from the kindergarten exit to the first grade entrance. Understanding that these two percentages
do represent two separate groups of students, there are still questions that need to be answered as
to why 85% of the kindergarteners were at or above grade level in the spring of 2015, but only
75% of the first graders were at or above grade level in the fall of 2014. These percentages need
to be closer in number to show less drop during the summer months. Gretchko may want to
consider giving a summer reading assignment to help keep students active in their reading over
the summer. This could help raise those beginning of the year scores to match where the
students were in June. Overall, it is evident from the data that reading is a primary focus of the
PLCs at Gretchko Elementary.
Discrepancies. There were no discrepancies found in this data source, with the
exception of the percentage difference from the kindergarten spring scores and the first grade fall
scores. As it was noted above, the research team was aware that these scores represent two
different groups of students which may be one of the reasons for this difference. In addition, it is
understood that students commonly experience a summer slide in their reading level over the
summer months due to a lack of formal instruction and reading practice. However, it should be a
goal of Gretchko Elementary to get those percentages as close together as possible to indicate
less of a loss of reading skills over the summer. A summer reading assignment or integrating
various summer reading activities organized by the school and/or the district may help with this.
Limitations. A limitation the team experienced with this data was that it only represents
the growth over the period of one school year. Since the research team did not follow these

31

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

students into the fall of 2015 and gather their F&P data, the concerns stated in the two sections
above are not 100% valid due to the fact that the discrepancies in the scores may very well be
caused by the fact that they are simply two different groups of students. To be a valid concern,
the team would need to collect the corresponding students F&P data from the fall of 2015 in
order to measure the possible drop in percentage of students testing at or above grade level. This
would be a step that the PLCs of Gretchko Elementary should do next in order to address this
possible concern that may require a need for summer interventions. Another limitation with
using the F&P reading scores was that there was no control group for comparison.
Writing Assessment Data
Summary. The final data source was the narrative writing common assessment given to
all kindergarten and first grade students. This assessment was given prior to the start of the
narrative writing unit (September 2014) to gather baseline data for the students skills in
narrative writing. A post-assessment was then given in March of 2015 after the students had
experience a years worth of instruction in narrative writing. A summary of the scores is
represented in the following two tables. In addition, visual representations of the scores in the
form of bar graphs can be found in Appendix I.
Table 4
Kindergarten- Narrative Writing Data 2014-2015
Level

Pre-Assessment (September)

Post-Assessment (March)

Advanced (4)

0% (0)

8% (17)

Proficient (3)

0% (0)

70% (147)

Partially Proficient (2)

2% (4)

21% (44)

98% (206)

1% (2)

Not Proficient (1)

Note: (n) = number of students assessed

32

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Table 5
First Grade- Narrative Writing Data 2014-2015
Level

Pre-Assessment (September)

Post-Assessment (March)

Advanced (4)

0% (0)

10% (19)

Proficient (3)

4% (7)

75% (141)

Partially Proficient (2)

36% (68)

14% (26)

Not Proficient (1)

60% (113)

1% (2)

Note: (n) = number of students assessed

The data above and on the previous page show a clear sign of growth in student
achievement due to quality instruction and the implementation of interventions for struggling
students. This is especially represented in the Not Proficient category. A total of 98% of
kindergarten students were not proficient prior to instruction; however, only 1% remained at this
level after the instruction! The same holds true for first grade, where 60% of students were
considered Not Proficient at the start of the year (lower than kindergarten due to the fact that
they received instruction during the prior year), but only 1% were found Not Proficient following
the instruction. This is significant growth in writing achievement.
Considering Advanced and Proficient as positive indicators and Partially Proficient and
Not Proficient as negative indicators, interesting results are found. For example, in kindergarten,
they started the year with 0% of students in the positive range and 100% in the negative range.
In March, those numbers grew to 78% of students in the positive range and 22% in the negative
range. Similarly, in first grade, they began the year with 4% of students in the positive range and
96% in the negative range. In March, those numbers grew to 85% of students scoring in the
positive range and 15% scoring in the negative range. This indicates remarkable growth.

33

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

While this growth is impressive, the results also highlighted some areas of needed
improvement. The kindergarten PLC will need to address the 22% of students scoring in the
negative range after the instruction had been delivered. They will want to work as a team to
develop strategies of intervention to bring those students into the positive range. The first grade
PLC will also need to address the 15% of students scoring in the negative range post-instruction.
While these two percentages are greatly improved from the pre-assessment scores, the ultimate
goal is to have 0% of the students scoring in that 1-2 (negative) range following the instruction.
Discrepancies. There were no discrepancies found in this data source.
Limitations. One limitation encountered with this data source was that these data only
represented one type of writing (narrative). The research team felt that it was better to focus on
only narrative writing due to the young ages of the students. This form of writing tends to be
more developmentally appropriate for the students at this age, thus providing more valid and
reliable results. The team felt studying the results of the other two forms of writing (opinion and
informational) would provide less accurate results due to various variables that may come into
play from these more advanced forms of writing. Another limitation to analyzing the writing
data was the lack of a control group.

34

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Chapter 5
Conclusions & Recommendations
Overview
The professional learning communities at Gretchko Elementary have been established
and securely in place since 2006. As the teachers and principal state, there is a high level of
collaboration and analysis of data. The results of this study show that the PLC process at
kindergarten and first grade is highly effective and has a positive impact on students academic
progress. The teachers value the collaborative time to develop common SMART goals to
increase student achievement with a focus on reading and writing. The teacher survey suggested
that they would like more time built into their regular teaching schedule to have their weekly
PLC. The research and data collected during the study also suggested that there is a need to
analyze the drop in reading and writing scores from June to September and to design additional
interventions for students falling in the negative range for narrative writing.
Conclusions
The staff at Gretchko Elementary effectively collaborate around reading and writing data
to analyze trends to effectively develop student interventions to increase student achievement
and academic success. The teachers reported that they have achieved a high level of data analysis
and are moving toward the use of multiple sources of data to determine research-based
interventions for students at tiers two and three. The reading and writing data collected over the
course of a year show strong student growth due to quality instruction and the implementation of
interventions for struggling students; in particular students in the not proficient category.
Although student growth and progress is impressive, the teachers at both grade levels will need
to address the students in the negative range in their post-assessment scores for narrative writing.

35

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Upon observation of the PLC process, it was noted that all the elements of a well-functioning
PLC were evident, from staff generated agendas, posted norms, SMART goals, collaboration
around data sources, and specific facilitation roles. As stated by one staff member, Everyone
has a role, everyone respects each other, everyone has a common goal...to improve student
data! The teachers stated unequivocally that they have support for the PLC process by their
building administrator who regularly attends their weekly meetings.
Recommendations
Beginning with the 2015-2016 school year, second grade will now be taught at Gretchko
Elementary. It is recommended that the staff and administration take advantage of this recent
change and take a longitudinal look, kindergarten through second grade, at the reading and
writing progress of the students. It is also recommended in order to prevent the summer drop in
scores that the staff investigates developing a summer reading program, or other research-based
strategies to help students maintain their levels of reading and writing proficiency. One
possibility is that the students that had writing scores in the negative range are not secure readers,
and in order to be a strong reader, a students writing must be at a reciprocal level of
achievement. One intervention the teachers could use with this group of students is called
Assisted Writing, by Dr. Linda Dorn from the University of Arkansas. The domains of reading
and writing are strongly connected and interwoven which promotes reciprocity.
To address staff concerns it is recommended that the administration and teachers take a
critical look at the number and quality of SMART goals, and determine if they have an
appropriate number to meet the intervention needs of the students. Some of the teachers felt
there were too many goals resulting in the development of less strategic courses of action.

36

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Time is an age old issue with educators. There is a need to address the Gretchko teachers
concerns regarding a longer time for their PLC, and their desire to have that time guaranteed
within their contractual day. If their position is taken into consideration, the teachers will not
have to surrender their planning or lunch time to have a PLC meeting. It is recommended that a
teacher representative address this concern with their professional association, and the Gretchko
principal inform central office of the concern as well. Hopefully working together they can
negotiate a mutually desirable agreement into the teachers contract to ensure time to
appropriately plan for data analysis and student intervention design.
Implications for Future Research
With the addition of the second grade at Gretchko, it provides the school with several
opportunities. Six new staff members have been added and will be assimilated into the PLC
culture and functioning of the school. There will be a greater need to have periodic, all staff,
PLC meetings to coordinate across grade levels the areas of academic need and data
analysis. With this opportunity, the staff can continue to collectively look at data to strengthen
their long term goal of increased retention of reading and writing achievement.
Additionally, the staff and school district could investigate other district models of how to
efficiently and effectively provide PLC time into their weekly contractual schedule. The staff
feels that the current amount of time for their PLC is not sufficient and should be increased to
provide more time for intervention design. West Bloomfield School District is going to execute
a new negotiating strategy call Integrative/Interest-Based Bargaining. Integrative bargaining
(also called "interest-based bargaining" or "win-win bargaining") is a negotiation strategy in
which parties collaborate to find a "win-win" solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on
developing mutually beneficial agreements based on the interests of the disputants. With

37

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Interest-Based Bargaining being brought into the district, there is hope for a change in the
structure of how to carve out sufficient time for the important work of a professional learning
community.

38

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

References
Alvich, D. (2011). Implementing professional learning communities to improve student writing
achievement. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Section 1419, p. 1.
Blacklock, P. (2009). The five dimensions of professional learning communities in improving
exemplary Texas elementary schools: A descriptive study. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing, Section 0158, p. 1.
Blankstein, A. (2010). Failure is not an option: 6 principles for making student success the only
option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, a SAGE Company.
Conca, L. (2014). Reading cross-training: Meeting the challenges of the common core with
common instructional routines for readers of all ages. New England Reading Association,
49 (2), 18-22, 112, 114-115.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1992). Creating the new American school: A principals guide to
school improvement. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (2002). Getting Started: Reculturing schools to become professional
learning communities. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities
respond when kids dont learn. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service.

39

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree.
Johnson, D. (2011). The impact of professional learning communities on urban teachers and their
students reading and math achievement. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
No. 3483144, p. 1.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Newmann, F.M., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public
and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison,
WI: The Center.
Saunders, W.M., Goldenberg, C.N., & Gallimore, R. (2009). Increasing achievement by focusing
grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental
study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal. 46, No. 4, 1007.
Schroeder, D. (2009). The relationship between elementary schools development as
professional learning communities and students achievement as measured by
Californias academic performance index. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Section
1323, p. 1.
Smith, K. (2010). The relationship between professional learning communities and student
achievement. ProQuest Dissertation Publishing, Section 0543, p. 1.

40

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Wells, C. and Feun, L. (2007) Implementation of learning community principles: A study of six
high schools. NASSP Bulletin, 91:141. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from
http://bul.sagepub.com/content/91/2/141.
Williams, D. (2011). The impact of professional learning communities on urban teachers and
their students reading and math achievement. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,
Section 1287, p.1.

41

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix A
Staff Survey Consent Form

42

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix B

Gretchko Elementary Professional

Learning Community Staff Survey
This survey was created to collect data for an action
research project regarding the implementation and
effectiveness of the PLCs at Gretchko Elementary
School. Your honest feedback is appreciated as our
action research team is looking to identify the link
between effective PLCs and student achievement.
Results will remain anonymous and intended solely
for the use of Oakland University's Education
Specialist Action Research Team. Thank you!
* Required
What grade level do you teach? *
o

Kindergarten

First Grade

How often does your grade-level PLC

meet? *

To what extent does your grade-level PLC

receive administrative support to operate
effectively? *
o

A lot

Some

Little

To what extent does your grade-level PLC

implement the analysis and utilization of
data? *
o

A lot

Some

Little

To what extent has your grade-level PLC

been provided sufficient time to hold your
meetings? *
o

A lot

Once per week

Some

Twice per month

Little

Once per month

Other:

In minutes, how long does your average

grade-level PLC last? *

To what extent has collaboration been

implemented in your grade-level PLC? *
o

A lot

Some

Little

To what extent has your grade-level PLC

implemented the use of common
assessments? *
o

A lot

Some

Little

To what extent has your grade-level PLC

been creating SMART goals for
intervention? *
o

A lot

Some

Little

Please list one or more strengths of your

grade-level PLC. *

Please list one or more areas where you

would like to see your grade-level PLC
improve. *

43

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix C
Open-Ended Responses to Teacher Survey
1. Please list one or more strengths of your grade-level PLC. (N=14)

Norms

High level of collaboration and analysis of data. We have worked hard to use multiple
sources of data to implement interventions for students

This time together allows us to collaborate on student learning, discuss common

assessments and other concerns.

Collaborative, goal oriented, effective!

We collaborate efficiently and are able to quickly pinpoint the needs of our students. We
use our Smart Goals to drive our instruction for our small groups, individual needs and
often this can lead to better whole group instruction. Additionally, we are able to make
great instructional choices earlier in the year based on SMART goal decisions from the
previous year.

Research and strategy based interventions to use with students.

Collaboration across our grade level

Data collection and analysis to improve instruction and implement interventions when
needed

Everyone has a role, everyone respects each other, everyone has a common goal, to
improve student data!

Analyzing data.

Teachers are determined to find ways to help students learn through the use of various
evidence and research based interventions and are eager to share with colleagues so that
all could students experience success.

Every "K" teacher comes to each PLC with a purpose, a set agenda and looks to
accomplish the agenda. Focused conversations; honest, trustworthy collaboration; sharing
of ideas

Our PLC works together very well to create assessments.

Sharing researched based interventions.

Our PLC is very good at collaborating and making informed decision to guide our
instruction.

2. Please list one or more areas where you would like to see your grade-level PLC improve.
(N=14)

Focused on one thing fully and not try to squeeze 2 things in

44

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

More timely with creating SMART goals

Have more time to share teaching strategies that are successful within our classroom.

Quicker work on smart goals

I would like to see us leave a few additional minutes to reflect one key area to focus on
for our upcoming agenda for the next week. We always have so many things that need to
be discussed and I would like to see those ideas narrowed down for a deeper discussion.

This year we met with K PLC once per month and I would like to continue that!

To be more timely in collecting data and writing SMART goals

More time to work on common assessments and to possibly meet with other grade levels
across the district!

A systematic way of following up on prior SMART goals.

I believe that we could continue to improve our SMART Goals by focusing on the
smaller steps to the bigger picture, this year we broke down the end goal into smaller
steps and I think we should really embrace this to support our learners

None at this time

We had a lot of SMART goals. There were almost too many small goals to keep track of.
I think broader (big picture) goals would make data collection easier.

Team taking turns being facilitator!

SMART goals. At this level it can be difficult to determine appropriate goals. At times
we put the cart before the horse.

45

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix D

46

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix E

47

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix F
Student Perception Survey

48

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix G

Perception Data for Kindergarten Students:

Reading and Writing
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Positive

50%

40%

Neutral

30%

Negative

20%
10%
0%
Reading (Fall)

Reading
(Spring)

Writing (Fall) Writing (Spring)

Perception Data for First Grade Students:

Reading and Writing
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

Positive

50%

Neutral

40%

Negative

30%
20%
10%

0%
Reading (Fall)

Reading (Spring)

Writing (Fall)

Writing (Spring)

49

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix H

Gretchko Fountas & Pinnell Reading Data:

2014-2015
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

Percent At/Above Grade Level

40%

Percent Below Grade Level

30%
20%
10%
0%
Kindergarten Kindergarten
(Fall)
(Spring)

First Grade
(Fall)

First Grade
(Spring)

50

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT GRETCHKO ELEMENTARY

Appendix I

Kindergarten Narrative Writing Data

2014-2015
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

Pre-Assessment (September)

40%

Post-Assessment (March)

30%
20%
10%
0%
Advanced (4) Proficient (3)

Partially
Not Proficient
Proficient (2)
(1)

First Grade Narrative Writing Data

2014-2015
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

Pre-Assessment (September)

40%

Post-Assessment (March)

30%
20%
10%
0%
Advanced (4) Proficient (3)

Partially
Not Proficient
Proficient (2)
(1)

51