1. Evaluation Plan of Literacy-Based Professional Learning at Newsome High School
Chad D. Cornwell
Walden University
December 15, 2014
2. Mixed Method Evaluation
During the 2014-2015 school year Newsome High School combined the literacy and
administrative teams into the Instructional Leadership Team (ILT), charged with the
responsibility of tracking teacher efforts as it directly relates to student achievement. Each
department is represented on the ILT and data is collected through departmental Peer Learning
Communities (PLC) on a newly designed PLC form (appendix A).
An initial departmental survey of teachers, conducted through PLCs by ILT members
revealed that teachers were confused about what data to include on monthly PLC logs. The gap
in understanding and application prompted an initial teacher training about student data. A
monthly faculty meeting in October was dedicated to train teachers about general classroom data
and the data required for the ILT to be effective. A survey (appendix B) of faculty members
occurred in December, prior to the winter break, assessing the effectiveness of the October
faculty training. The ILT will use monthly PLC forms, data from initial PLC discussion about
ILT data needs, and the December teacher survey to understand how data is used across the
campus to inform instruction and effect student learning.
Of particular interest to the ILT are students who achieve a level one or two on state
mandated reading comprehension tests. Reading teachers track student data on FAIR (Florida
Assessment in Reading) and FCAT 2.0 (Florida’s Comprehensive Assessment Test) monthly
August through December. The ILT expected reading teachers to participate in departmental
PLC meetings to align the efforts of other departments with the reading curriculum in order to
raise student achievement. In January reading teachers will report on their efforts to collaborate
with other departments and will report on student achievement based on the reading data form
(appendix C).
3. During the second semester continued data collection will occur as the ILT prioritizes
which data is most effective for teachers to comprehend in order to impact student achievement.
End of Course (EOC) and AP (advanced placement) assessment data will be aggregated at the
end of the year and teachers interviewed about how data is used to guide instruction.
Information gathered by the ILT during the first and second semesters will be used to set a data
priority for the 2015-2016 academic year and the PLC log and teacher training materials will be
updated accordingly.
The goal of both the data collection and teacher training is for NHS teachers to best use
student data to understand student needs and prescribe an appropriate course of action. Data-
driven instruction being one of the newest buzz words in education is moot without a specific
course of action and understanding of the data provided. The ILT has set a priority on student
literacy, specifically on vocabulary and reading comprehension, aligned with Florida state
standards. Literacy standards apply not only to English language arts (ELA) departments, but
extend also to history/social studies, math, and science.
Action Research
One primary focus of the 2015-2016 academic year will be collaboration between ELA
(specifically reading teachers) and history/social studies, math, and science departments.
Teacher training will be developed by NHS reading teachers, helping teachers in other
departments use specific reading strategies across the curriculum. Using student data aggregated
from the 2014-2015 academic year ILT team members, reading teachers, and select faculty
members from history/social studies, math, and science departments will produce a two-part
teacher training program integrating reading strategies into the other core subjects. Training will
occur during August teacher pre-planning with a second follow up training session after
4. October’s retake of the FCAT 2.0 test. A brief survey of teachers and students will identify
where strategies are effective and where improvements can be made.
Reading teachers, in collaboration with teachers of core subjects and ILT members will
make adjustments to the cross-curricular literacy program based on data collected in October and
November. The trainings will be adjusted and the literacy program repeated between January
and April, focusing on those students who did not pass the October FCAT 2.0 and are preparing
for the April test. After all testing has been completed, the ILT will determine which efforts
were most effective, which data best informs decision making, and adjust training programs in
order to be most effective for teachers and to produce the greatest results in student assessments.
The new program will be produced in the fall of 2016, monitored and evaluated throughout the
2016-2017 academic year for a third year of data analysis.
Evaluating professional learning efforts related to student achievement must occur
longitudinally over a long period of time. Utilizing both mixed methods (quantifiable student
and teacher data and qualitative data about teacher perceptions) and a focused action plan that is
grounded in data are essential for data collection and teacher learning efficiency and
effectiveness. Using data gathered over three years Newsome HS could develop a plan of action
that can be used by other schools throughout the district, state, and country, that is built on valid
research and grounded in student data.
5. APPENDIX A – Monthly PLC Log
NEWSOME P.L.C. MEETING LOG 2014-15
Month of Meeting: Date:
PLC Sub-Group Name: Recorder:
Attendees: Absentees:
*The following are questions / topics that should be included in your PLC discussion:
*check the items off as they are discussed:
1) _____ Discuss and review discussion of culture / atmosphere of Newsome.
a) _____ Did the ideas from the lastmeeting work?
b) _____ Are there new suggestions to try and / or new concerns to discuss?
c) _____ Students with excessiveabsences/behavior issues? (R.T.I. – response to intervention)
*Use the space on the I.L.T. COMMITTEE INFO. / DATA sheet (2nd page).
2) _____ Discuss and review suggestions and ideas from the last PLC meeting:
3) Discussion:
a) _____ Problems anyone is having?
b) _____ Suggestions for the problem(s).
c) _____ Assessment results.(add to second page of PLC log)
d) _____ Changes to pacingneeded?
e) Usingstandards handout: highlightany standard(s) your group is currently usingand listthe standard
number(s).
f) What successful strategies did you use when teachingthese standards (activities,CRISS,KAGAN, gradual release,
scaffolding,modeling,etc.
3) Planning for next PLC:
a) Next Unit/Topic/Focus of study:
b) Thoughts/ideas/activities for success (Strategies:CRISS, KAGAN, gradual release,scaffolding,
modeling, etc.):
6. I.L.T. COMMITTEE INFO. / DATA
Month of Meeting: Date:
PLC Sub-group Name: Recorder:
4) Progress Monitoring:
*Turn this portion of the PLC log into your ILT Committee representative prior to the next ILT meeting (not to
Ann Coats). It can be questions, suggestions, KUDOS, concerns and it should have some data concerning
progress of students.
a) Data for monthly Steering Committee meeting and (who responsiblefor reporting):
b) Review discussion of culture / atmosphere of Newsome.
a) Did the ideas from the last meetingwork?
b) Are there new suggestions to try and / or new concerns to discuss?
c) Questions / Suggestions / Concerns:
R.T.I. Discussion about students that you are concerned about, including excessive absences/behavior. * this is
another layer to help catch these students and provide intervention
7. APPENDIX B – Survey of Faculty
1. Prior to October's training which data source did you use most frequently?
Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Classroom Tests
Departmental Tests
District Tests
State Tests - FAIR
State Tests - FCAT
State Tests - EOC
AP Tests
2. After October's training which data do you use?
Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never
Classroom Tests
Departmental Tests
District Tests
State Test - FAIR
State Test - FCAT
State Test – EOC
AP Test
3. How often do you use data to assess student literacy?
Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never
Vocabulary
Reading
Comprehension
8. 4. Which data do you report in monthly PLC meetings?
Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never
Classroom Tests
Departmental Tests
District Tests
State Test – FAIR
State Test - FCAT
State Test - EOC
AP Test
5. Which assessment(s) provide the MOST accurate information about student literacy - vocabulary?
Classroom Tests
Departmental Tests
District Tests
State Test - FAIR
State Test - FCAT
State Test - EOC
AP Test
6. Which assessment(s) provide the MOST accurate information about student literacy - reading
comprehension?
Classroom Tests
Department Tests
District Tests
State Test - FAIR
State Test - FCAT
State Test - EOC
AP Test
9. 7. Which assessment(s) provide the LEAST accurate information about student literacy - vocabulary?
Classroom Tests
Department Tests
District Tests
State Test - FAIR
State Test - FCAT
State Test - EOC
AP Test
8. Which assessment(s) provide the LEAST accurate information about student literacy - reading
comprehension?
Classroom Tests
Department Tests
District Tests
State Test - FAIR
State Test - FCAT
State Test - EOC
AP Test
9. In which department do you teach?
Art/Performing Arts
English Language Arts
ESE
Foreign Languages
History/Social Studies
Math
Physical Education
Science
Technology
10. APPENDIX C – Student Data Form
Student: _________________________________________________________ SAT ________________ ACT ________________ PERT _________________
Teacher: IR______ Data Chat: FCAT and FAIR Student Score Details & Analysis:
FCAT Cluster Scores
Year Level
1-5
FCAT Score(245) Constructs Meaning
from Informational
Text
Constructs Meaning
from Literature
Vocabulary Reading
Application
Literary Analysis
Fiction/Non-fiction
Informational
Text/Research
Process
Apr.2015
Oct. 2014
Apr.2014
Oct.2013
FAIR Assessment
Date FCAT Success Probability
(FSP)
RC Percentile Rank MAZE Percentile Rank Word Analysis Percentile
Rank
AP2 - December 2013
AP1 - September 2013
Word Knowledge
Ability/Percentile Rank
VocabularyKnowledge
Ability/Percentile Rank
Reading Comprehension
Ability/Percentile Rank
Probability of Literacy
Success
Ability/Percentile Rank
Syntactic Knowledge
Ability/Percentile Rank
New FAIR-FS
AP1 – September 2014
AP2 – December 2014
TEACHER USE
EA __________ UA __________ ET __________ UT __________ OS __________
ELL _________ IEP _________ 504 _________ Accommodations _______________________________________________________________
ISS __________ OSS _________ D ____________ PCH _________ CO_________ CR __________
