When a teacher leader approached the Grand Rapids Christian High School faculty in 2012 about “the PLC” (professional learning community) process, we were convinced that this was another educational initiative, an acronym even, that would fade away if we just waited it out. We were being asked to work collaboratively in our teams (departments) and center our work around four questions:
What do we want students to know/be able to do?
How will we know they’ve learned it?
What do we do if they don’t learn it?
What do we do if they already know it?
Those questions were logical questions to ask, but our meetings didn’t feel productive. We knew we were teaching the same things we’d always taught, and we knew what our tests looked like. We also felt strongly that it was the student’s responsibility to prepare well and that learning would come for those who just worked harder. Our team meetings felt like a waste of time that could be better used prepping in our own classrooms.
Professional Learning Teams (PLTs)
I was asked to attend a PLC Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, to represent teachers. I thought “Sure, I’ll go to Phoenix in February!” So I traveled to Phoenix with around forty educators from our district. I was more excited about the comradery with colleagues and sightseeing than I was about the content of the conference. I remember listening to the keynote speaker and being convicted that many of the principles and beliefs that were being presented should be of the utmost importance to me as a Christian educator! The speaker talked about how each child was different and had unique gifts and challenges. He talked about the belief that all students could learn if we worked together as a team. He brought to light some damaging, archaic practices that we were still using. He spoke of the real-life consequences that our students and society would face if students failed. I was challenged, convicted, and re-inspired as an educator. It all made so much sense to me. What our school had been trying to do alone couldn’t and shouldn’t be done alone. To sum it up, our school had been more focused on teaching than on learning.
We are now all-in on collaboration at Grand Rapids Christian High. We realized that this PLC process is not a program that gets implemented but rather a new way to think about education. We built a master schedule that not only provided time for teacher collaboration but also required collaboration. Each Monday morning our PLTs meet from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m., and we have a late start for students. These are not traditional department meetings that focus on budget, awards, responsibilities, or even lesson plans. They focus on student learning and are guided by the four questions. These four questions, which before seemed so obvious and easy to answer, have come to life and drive all the work we do in our teams. We have realized that the work we once hoped would eventually be finished, will never be finished. Working in collaborative teams to make sure that all students learn at high levels is ongoing and has given our work in Christian education renewed purpose.
Questions That Drive PLTs
The first question, “What do we want students to know/be able to do?,” goes much deeper than choosing a textbook or simply making a list of standards to be covered. First we need to decide which standards, skills, and dispositions are essential. Then we need to make a collective commitment that every student will learn them at a high level. This is especially important in Christian education where we don’t have a list of state standards to fall back on. We have a responsibility to collaborate about how a Christian perspective is infused in our curriculum. We acknowledge that not all students can learn everything, but we do believe that all students can learn the essential standards when we work together. In the past, we viewed some content as essential; however, when data showed that students had not learned, we threw up our hands and moved on. We had too much to cover, and we didn’t really believe that the content was essential. In our PLTs, we decided that if any content is truly essential, we must be relentless until we know that every student has learned at a high level, even after we give the unit test and the unit has ended.
The second question, “How will we know they’ve learned it?,” has changed the way we think about assessment. If we’re honest, assessment has been used primarily to sort and rank students in our schools. We are now focused on common assessment for learning rather
than assessment of learning. This “formative” assessment gives targeted, timely feedback to students and teachers and drives the way we teach and intervene. Traditionally, our assessments gave us a unit score that was a combination of many targets and didn’t really help us. We realized that our students were showing us that they knew how to play the “point game” rather than that they had learned essential content or skills.
When we collaborated about assessment, it uncovered so much about our instruction. We learned that our assessments were typically created in such a way that a student who did have basic, C-level knowledge, might receive a crushing score. Our assessments typically contained about 75 percent higher-level questions. We also learned that we were inconsistent in how we graded assessments. When teachers sat together and scored assessments, they were often far apart in how they graded. Looking at assessments together also uncovered areas where either we did not adequately teach a standard or we created a poor assessment question. Assessment needs to be a strategy that drives learning rather than a time when we record learning. It should tell the learner and the teacher what the next step is in the learning process. Another realization was that most feedback (grades) really shouldn’t go in the gradebook. It should be used as feedback that isn’t threatening and helps students move forward in their learning.
If question two really impacts our process, and we shift our thinking of assessment, question three, “What do we do if they don’t learn it?,” is the logical next step. It’s the logical next step but also the most challenging shift in our educational system. If we really believe that God creates each of us with unique gifts, passions, talents, challenges, and needs, how can we feel good about our traditional settings where each student gets the same amount of instruction in each content area? Do we really all need the same amount of math instruction?
We’ve attempted to provide educational support to students in the past by placing them in a program. We say, “These students receive educational support.” Perhaps we pull them out of class or give them a guided study hall with a tutor. In some schools, those providing support to our highest-need students are our least trained professionals without teaching certificates. But can we really say that all these students need help all the time? Can’t we also say that a different set of students needs more time and support on each individual learning target? There may even be times when our highest achieving students need to be retaught a concept or lesson. For students who did not receive educational support as part of a program, we would try to catch them at lunch or before or after school. The reality is that those are not systems that work for all students. Many students need to catch a bus after school. Other students are part of clubs that meet during lunch. And by the way, don’t our teachers deserve a lunch break without students?
The other reality is that the students who need help the most won’t come at lunch or after school. At Grand Rapids Christian High, we decided that in order to give each student what she or he needs, we needed to create flexible time in our schedules for teachers to reteach essential content to those who need it. We created what we call a “focus period” three times a week after lunch where teachers can “lock in” students for reteaching essential learning targets. Which students are locked in is based on assessment data on each learning target. Teacher teams even share students during this time. Since all our teachers have multiple preps, this frees them up to reteach a target from a different course. Our interventions are now timely, targeted, adult-driven, and provided by our most qualified employees, our teachers! Interventions are by student, by standard, by learning target. Students who aren’t locked in can choose focus periods that provide enrichment opportunities or quiet areas to study. Focus periods have made our MTSS (multitiered systems of support) come to life at Grand Rapids Christian High.
As mentioned above, each student is different not only in each content area but also on each target within the content area. Some students need additional support, and some students deserve enrichment opportunities. Question four, “What do we do if they already know it?,” acknowledges that sometimes we teach a learning target that some students are already proficient in. This question makes us think more deeply about how we differentiate both inside and outside the classroom. Can we offer meaningful homework that extends and deepens the target? Can we (at Grand Rapids Christian High) offer enrichment focus periods that challenge certain students? A few of the sessions we’ve offered during this time are drone technology, gospel choir, Spanish conversation groups, film club, praise and worship, college representative visits, Bible studies led by juniors and seniors, and so on.
Throughout this collaborative process, we’ve made some mistakes and faced some unexpected challenges. We’ve learned that it’s difficult to sit at the table with colleagues and come to consensus about which standards are essential and what proficiency looks like on those standards. It’s difficult to come to the table with your assessment results and learn that your colleagues got better results than you did. We also learned that this collaborative time is job-imbedded professional development. In fact, we believe it’s the best professional development we can offer our teachers.
We’ve learned that our definition of accountability was a bit backward. We certainly believed that accountability was important for students to learn, but our main method for holding students accountable was through grades. Unfortunately, this gave us three negative results. First, the grade no longer represented what a student knew or was able to do. A strong grade represented compliance, not necessarily high levels of learning. Second, we learned that many students who were receiving zeros on their homework really didn’t care about the zeros! Low grades didn’t change their behavior. Third, and most importantly, they weren’t learning. They weren’t doing the work and, in many cases, their punishment was that they weren’t allowed to do the work once it was late. We were holding students accountable by not allowing them to do the work that we’ve required them to do! We shifted our philosophy on accountability to one that requires them to do the work in a timely way. If a student has a missing assignment, they are assigned to a guided study where they are required to do the work immediately.
We learned that although we wanted to be an MTSS school, we weren’t. We had not really figured out how to give each student what he or she needed to be successful. To bring our MTSS framework to the next level, we created not only teacher teams but also two school-wide teams. The first team is our School Leadership Team. This team is made up of not only administrators but also teacher-leaders who represent their teams. This team is charged with coming to consensus about best practices, identifying our current reality, and prioritizing resources to work for healthy change. Change in education feels nearly impossible at times, but, using a model of shared leadership, it can happen in a way that brings teachers along with a common vision. The other school-wide team is the School Intervention Team. This team is charged with both implementing and evaluating the school’s interventions and creating intervention plans for our most at-risk students. Both teams meet at least every other week during the school day. We believe these meetings are so important that they shouldn’t be a before- or after-school meeting.
The PLC process has transformed our school by shifting our focus from teaching to learning. It’s through collaboration and by taking collective responsibility for our students’ growth that we can prepare them to be effective servants of Christ in contemporary society.
Brad Mockabee is in his 20th year at Grand Rapids Christian High School and his first year as principal. Over the last 20 years, Brad has served in many roles at GRCHS including Spanish teacher, head football coach, Winterim coordinator, and dean of curriculum.
