On Wednesday, September 2, 2015, for the first time, I witnessed a Professional Learning Community (PLC). I was invited to EJE Academies in El Cajon, California by a cohort named Jacob Dominquez. I was extremely thankful that I was able to have this experience before I left San Diego and headed back to Vancouver, British Columbia; as we do not have PLC’s here and the concept is foreign.
Purely on observation, the PLC at EJE Academies was split up into groups according to the grade the teachers taught: Kinder., Gr. 1, Gr 2, Gr. 3, Gr. 4, Gr. 5, and Gr. 6-8. Each group met in separate rooms, usually in their “leader’s” classroom. Everyone had their own Mac Book Pro’s-13” and when there was discussion regarding technology goals, everyone would refer to a shared document in Google Docs, that had been sent to them ahead of time for review. Together, they actively updated, asked questions, and made suggestions.
During this “Technology” meeting, they would ask Mr. Dominquez, their Tech Coordinator, questions regarding the Tech Plan that had been laid out for the year. Explanations, ideas, adjustments clarifications, concerns, and follow-ups for unanswered or vague details were collected for their next meeting or updated via email for a later date.
Outside this specific “Technology” meeting, the group worked on lesson plans for the following week. They had each other for feedback and assistance. However, for the most part, they worked independently around one table facing one another; simply making themselves available and at each other’s disposal. When I asked what else they used this time for, I found out that they would also analyze and share data and create “exit tickets,” another new concept to me.
As I went looking from classroom to classroom, I saw by the door, on the wall, “exit questions” and the notes on what type of learning would take place in order for the students to answer them. Students were to answer the questions every day or after every unit. Each question required 80% of the students to answer correctly. This would inform the teacher whether the lesson was successful enough to move on or to reteach. From there, the teacher would meet with the others to make improvements and to ensure consistency between classes.
When I inquired further about how their courses were taught, I was surprised to find that they were not curriculum based, emphasizing the importance of having a PLC in place. Time required to research updated resources and to structure classes that will still follow the common core and San Diego education standards is a need. Supplies are also updated and requested during these times, along with mini workshops, training, and snacks. Furthermore, like Rick DuFour’s “Collaborative Lite” points out, time is needed to build relationships amongst staff as well.
The whole meeting was from 1pm to 4pm, 3 hours long, each week, with another meeting either on Monday or Tuesday. How systematic, and how consistent, and how productive; “…true collaboration does not happen by chance or by invitation. It happens only when leaders commit to creating the systems that embed collaboration in the routine practices of the school…” (DuFour, 2003). In comparison to my own experience and how we use our “Prep Time” and our “CP Days” (Collaborative Planning days that happen once a month), EJE’s PLC sessions are used so much more differently, maybe even more affectively.
This could be because I was observing and experiencing “Stage Three” of Timothy Kanold’s "The Seven Stages of Teacher Collaboration Diagnostic Tool.” EJE Academies were “Planning, planning, planning;” and not surprisingly so since it was the beginning of the school year and new iPads and new Technology plans were being implemented. The content of what should be taught needed to be discussed and prepared for, with full understanding from all teachers with changes included from their previous experiences.
Conclusively, and in accordance to Helen Temperley’s “Inquiry and Knowledge Building Cycle,” EJE Academies’ PLC touched base on what their teachers needed to learn, including their improvement of using online apps and tools on various devices that they will be teaching their students. I also witnessed them mentor each other, relay technological issues to their tech coordinator, and consider which language (English or Spanish) they would teach each skill in. For the second half of the cycle that I didn’t see at the meetings, I would assume, the teachers would make “exit tickets” and continue to collaborate with one another, following-up on problems and experiences to make continual progress throughout the year, week by week, to ensure student and staff learning has been attained successfully.
Resources:
DuFour, Rick. (2003). Leading edge: ‘Collaborative lite’ puts student achievement on a starvation diet. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.html
Kanold, Timothy. (2012). Table 1.1: The Seven Stages of Teacher Collaboration Diagnostic Tool. Solution Tree Press. Retrieved from http://www.go.solution-tree.com/commoncore
Purely on observation, the PLC at EJE Academies was split up into groups according to the grade the teachers taught: Kinder., Gr. 1, Gr 2, Gr. 3, Gr. 4, Gr. 5, and Gr. 6-8. Each group met in separate rooms, usually in their “leader’s” classroom. Everyone had their own Mac Book Pro’s-13” and when there was discussion regarding technology goals, everyone would refer to a shared document in Google Docs, that had been sent to them ahead of time for review. Together, they actively updated, asked questions, and made suggestions.
During this “Technology” meeting, they would ask Mr. Dominquez, their Tech Coordinator, questions regarding the Tech Plan that had been laid out for the year. Explanations, ideas, adjustments clarifications, concerns, and follow-ups for unanswered or vague details were collected for their next meeting or updated via email for a later date.
Outside this specific “Technology” meeting, the group worked on lesson plans for the following week. They had each other for feedback and assistance. However, for the most part, they worked independently around one table facing one another; simply making themselves available and at each other’s disposal. When I asked what else they used this time for, I found out that they would also analyze and share data and create “exit tickets,” another new concept to me.
As I went looking from classroom to classroom, I saw by the door, on the wall, “exit questions” and the notes on what type of learning would take place in order for the students to answer them. Students were to answer the questions every day or after every unit. Each question required 80% of the students to answer correctly. This would inform the teacher whether the lesson was successful enough to move on or to reteach. From there, the teacher would meet with the others to make improvements and to ensure consistency between classes.
When I inquired further about how their courses were taught, I was surprised to find that they were not curriculum based, emphasizing the importance of having a PLC in place. Time required to research updated resources and to structure classes that will still follow the common core and San Diego education standards is a need. Supplies are also updated and requested during these times, along with mini workshops, training, and snacks. Furthermore, like Rick DuFour’s “Collaborative Lite” points out, time is needed to build relationships amongst staff as well.
The whole meeting was from 1pm to 4pm, 3 hours long, each week, with another meeting either on Monday or Tuesday. How systematic, and how consistent, and how productive; “…true collaboration does not happen by chance or by invitation. It happens only when leaders commit to creating the systems that embed collaboration in the routine practices of the school…” (DuFour, 2003). In comparison to my own experience and how we use our “Prep Time” and our “CP Days” (Collaborative Planning days that happen once a month), EJE’s PLC sessions are used so much more differently, maybe even more affectively.
This could be because I was observing and experiencing “Stage Three” of Timothy Kanold’s "The Seven Stages of Teacher Collaboration Diagnostic Tool.” EJE Academies were “Planning, planning, planning;” and not surprisingly so since it was the beginning of the school year and new iPads and new Technology plans were being implemented. The content of what should be taught needed to be discussed and prepared for, with full understanding from all teachers with changes included from their previous experiences.
Conclusively, and in accordance to Helen Temperley’s “Inquiry and Knowledge Building Cycle,” EJE Academies’ PLC touched base on what their teachers needed to learn, including their improvement of using online apps and tools on various devices that they will be teaching their students. I also witnessed them mentor each other, relay technological issues to their tech coordinator, and consider which language (English or Spanish) they would teach each skill in. For the second half of the cycle that I didn’t see at the meetings, I would assume, the teachers would make “exit tickets” and continue to collaborate with one another, following-up on problems and experiences to make continual progress throughout the year, week by week, to ensure student and staff learning has been attained successfully.
Resources:
DuFour, Rick. (2003). Leading edge: ‘Collaborative lite’ puts student achievement on a starvation diet. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/educatorindex.html
Kanold, Timothy. (2012). Table 1.1: The Seven Stages of Teacher Collaboration Diagnostic Tool. Solution Tree Press. Retrieved from http://www.go.solution-tree.com/commoncore