Pressure is On.

Bird Park High School is located in the county and is a multicultural and diverse school. Unlike many of the schools in the county this school is unique in the aspects that it hosts a large number of English Language Learners. Over the past few years SOLs scores in areas of math and science had been trending in a slight downward curve and at times stagnant. By the school year 2018 the science department had to use their three year average of scores from previous years to meet accreditation standards. This meant that he pressure was on the perform and it was imperative this coming year they met their pass rate goal.

While there are a number of sciences taught at the high school level like ecology, environmental science, AP/IB sciences there are only a few that are SOL courses: earth science, biology, and chemistry. This particular year came with a number of challenges for the science department some known to school as whole and some that were overlying and looming issues like:

-State Standards had changed and Chemistry students who had already acquired their two SOL credits no longer had to take the Chemistry SOL. For, this department in particular Chemistry typical had the highest pass rate of the three subjects and losing those students testing could present a problem in the overall average

-Gap Group scores such as SWDs and ELLs needed to dramatically improve. Bird Park has larger number of students in both populations.

- Attendance issues loomed over Bird Park and behavior issues were very present and higher in the 10th grade population (This had a large effect on Earth Science last year and this year now Biology as they became their students.)

It was now seemingly up to the two PLCs, Biology and Earth Science, to make sure the students were successful and we achieved the pass rate. Biology had a larger number of students and a strong, pretty much cohesive PLC composed of 5 veteran teachers: Mrs. E, Mrs. S, Mrs. M, Mrs. R, and myself. We were tasked with the goal of 75% pass rate or higher for Biology. At the time it seemed like a pretty normal and easy task for the group.

As you can imagine for a veteran group of teachers we voiced our concerns if we had any early and often. Based on those concerns our Administrator took those to try her best to find solutions. While not much was done it was apparent that we all were in this together and also great to know we were all working on the same page. As the year school got underway, and pre-assessments were given and data collected, summative county assessment data was collected, and other information that was pertinent to the apparent goal was collected our administrator gave us a number. This number would be the determining factor in whether or not we would make our 75% goal. Each teacher received a number that would represent a pass percentage they needed for their students testing in order for us to achieve our goal. The scores were formulated based on varying factors, such as, number of students you had in biology, the leveling of the students, whether or not you had SWDs or ELLs, pre-assessment data, other data sources and progress in which had been made by that time. This numbers obviously made a number of us cringe initially, but only time would tell. Throughout the year the PLC made measures to ensure we could meet the goal despite battling issues of equity, discipline, attendance issues, etc. As SOLs approached, however, you could tell nervousness and tension loomed above many heads once midyear-assessment scores came in. It was apparent, we were way off on our individual goals and also as a PLC. As the PLC began to prepare for the SOL with review and remediation plans this particular time we felt we needed more and with a supportive administrator the work and task began.

Task: Develop a targeted robust review and remediation data-driven plan for Biology.

It is apparent that our PLC had the foundation of trust as we have over the years, but we did exhibit some of the second dysfunction which is fear of conflict. Due to our bond we had built we rarely raised questions within our own group about performance or lack thereof. Majority of the time we would find understanding as to why things were heading in the direction we need them to be. Part of this could be as Lencioni describes as an avoidance of hurting team members’ feelings. For example, when we would come together to discuss data Mrs. R and myself numbers were always dangerously low impart because Mrs. R had primarily all the SWD classes and myself had all the ELL sections. This was understood early on and created quite a bit of animosity when expected to perform as some of the other PLC members when they housed IB, Honors, and C-Level students. Hence, playing a huge part into our projected pass percentage goals. However, when meetings occurred it seemed to be a known factor that our percentage would be quite lower and members never really dug into the fact that regardless we still needed those numbers to grow. After all not only would it help our pass rate, but it was an overall goal for the school to raise scores among those students.

Making the remediation plan with the PLC went smoothly we devised a plan agreed to split work where it needed to be split and collaborated flawlessly. In hindsight, once we put a plan into action it is easy to see where we needed more conflict. Not to say that the plan wasn’t successful, but perhaps if we engaged in more productive conflict we would have produced the best possible plan for our students. Like not accounting for our students who needed manipulatives and hands on activities and incorporating higher levels of blooms within our questioning for our advanced students. Even down to understanding that the plan we come up with will not be the solution for every student and in doing so we could have simply asked the students what they feel their needs are going into the SOLs.

I personally could have improved our conflict dysfunction by being more open to conflict. Meaning, if I am right, if you ask the members of my PLC they probably would say that I would be the last person to create conflict with because I internalize conflict often. This is a personal struggle of mine and I always say “I don’t like to be messed with”, but hey who does? It seems child-like but in a sense what I am saying is that typically in conflicting situations while I may hear the actual message I often focus on the one part that seems to feel like an attack. In response, when I do feel that way I don’t spew out in anger or break down in tears. I do what some may see as worse. I typically just shut down. I feel if early on I showed my members that during conflict I would not shut down or shut them out then we would have more productive conflict conversation for a better solution.