3, page 41, for an in-depth explanation of SMART goals). All the teams then monitored learners’ growth, using their ongoing and grade level–appropriate classroom mathematics assessments. The entire building used common formative and summative mathematics assessments. Together, the teams created rubrics for three mathematical areas—(1) computational accuracy, (2) mathematical language, and (3) problem solving—that they would consistently use across all the grade levels.
Table 2.1: Hawk Elementary School’s Third-Grade STAAR Mathematics Results, 2012
| Students | Total Number of Students | Percentage of Students Passing |
| All | 122 | 73 |
| Economically Disadvantaged | 7 | 29 |
| Asian | 8 | 100 |
| Black or African American | 7 | 57 |
| Hispanic | 22 | 68 |
| Biracial or Multiracial | 3 | 67 |
| White | 82 | 73 |
| Female | 57 | 74 |
| Male | 65 | 72 |
| Students Receiving Special Education | 14 | 36 |
Source: © 2016 by Susannah O’Bara. Used with permission.
As vertical K–5 teams, teachers practiced scoring student work together to monitor student learning, calibrate scoring for common data, align their expectations across all the grade levels, and ultimately improve their targeted instructional decision making. Each teacher was randomly assigned a learner, whose work he or she always brought to the monthly staffwide data team meetings for vertical scoring (for example, kindergarten teacher A always brought student 3’s work to the team meetings). Simultaneously, all teachers monitored learners in all classrooms (not just the student whose work they brought to every team meeting) and engaged all their learners in the various common assessments, using the exact same measurement tools for all their learners in their grade levels. Vertical teams reviewed work samples during monthly meetings, and they posted the results as evidence to monitor progress toward their overall student achievement goal.
Gradually, teams increased the rigor of their expectations. For instance, once the kindergarten teachers realized the caliber of work their learners would face in third grade, they were able to better align their expectations for their kindergarten learners. Over time, teams noticed a significant improvement in the quality of all their learners’ work in mathematics. All the teams posted significant gains (S. O’Bara, personal communication, July 2016). As an example, table 2.2 (page 24) features the third-grade team’s results.
Table 2.2: Hawk Elementary School’s Third-Grade State STAAR Mathematics Results, 2012–2014
Source: © 2016 by Susannah O’Bara. Used with permission.
The qualitative data were equally rewarding. In Hawk Elementary, teachers commonly voice appreciation for their peers’ work. For example, in the spring of 2014, fifth-grade mathematics teachers noted their surprise and delight at the deep problem solving and rigorous work the kindergarten students generated in mathematics (S. O’Bara, personal communication, July 2016). Moreover, the principal was able to stop in any classroom and have conversations with random students that revealed rigorous thinking in their mathematics work. Even though the teachers had experienced great results, they knew their work was not yet done. All the teams had similar SMART goals, and all teams continued their energies in mathematics while adding in other focused areas (such as reading) with equal commitment and diligence.
Another school, Rutland High School in Rutland, Vermont, established itself as a PLC and started using collaborative common assessments after it learned the school needed improvement (B. Olsen, personal communication, July 2016). The staff could have found it challenging to develop collaborative common assessments when the teams were so small (just one or two people per course), but the staff members worked together to develop a consistent set of rubrics that they could use schoolwide, while still assessing their individual departments’ content standard expectations. Rutland High found innovative ways to organize small teams at the secondary level, such as the following.
• Ninth-grade mathematics and earth science teachers meet as an interdisciplinary team that focuses on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
• English 1 and World History 1 teachers meet as an interdisciplinary team that focuses on global studies.
• English 2 and World History 2 teachers meet as an interdisciplinary team that focuses on global studies.
• Special educators and paraeducators are integrated into the core-subject teams.
• Singletons who don’t have colleagues to collaborate with on-site instead collaborate off-site with colleagues in other schools.
The teams also found innovative ways to use common assessments with interdisciplinary subjects. They began with rubrics in technical reading and writing and, over time, added rubrics in cross-cutting skills and processes, like public speaking, analytical thinking, creative thinking, and researching. Teams meet for an hour every Wednesday, and they regularly use the schoolwide rubrics to monitor student achievement through the common assessment process within their individual curricula. New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) data indicate that their hard work has improved their students’ learning in all tested areas. In addition, they continue to make significant gains in learning for all students, including the economically disadvantaged students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL). Students have demonstrated significant gains in reading, the area where teams began their focal work with common assessments across the content areas (as shown in table 2.3, page 26).
Table 2.3: Percentage of Students Meeting the NECAP Reading Standard
Source: © 2016 by Bill Olsen. Used with permission.
In 2015, Rutland High moved from lagging behind the state average in reading, writing, mathematics, and science to matching or—more often—exceeding the state average with consistency, even as the state average had increased in all but one area. While the gaps between Rutland High’s students and the state’s students have narrowed since 2013, Rutland High’s overall trajectory continues to go in an upward direction for all students, especially the economically disadvantaged—a group that continues to increase in size each year.
These two brief case studies—(1) Hawk Elementary, from a large urban district of approximately 25,000 students at the time, and (2) Rutland High, from a small rural district of approximately 2,200 students at that time—offer student achievement gain stories, and they are only a sampling of the repeated success stories educators can find in the literature and on websites like AllThingsPLC (www.allthingsplc.info). It makes sense that when educators work together to solve a complex problem, such as addressing gaps in student achievement, amazing things can happen. Learners win when teachers collaborate on their behalf.
A Win for Teachers
Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, and Robert Eaker (2008) believe that the practice of using common assessments is critical in the work of PLCs. In fact, it is the engine that drives success. They highlight how the practice ultimately impacts
