PLC Blog

Are There Universities That Teach PLC Principles?

January 6, 2009

By: Rick DuFour

We recently answered an email regarding PLCs in higher education.

I’m a board member for a small district in Wyoming. I’m curious if some colleges teach PLC principles more than others. It would seem to make sense that we should recruit new teachers from those schools as one way to help institutionalize PLC in our district.

We aren’t familiar enough with the programs of the many colleges around the country to recommend particular schools. The best option for a school district is to examine the course requirements of the undergraduate and graduate education programs to see if they offer courses on PLCs, working in collaborative teams, and using common formative assessments.

Your proposal that colleges would prepare students to work in PLCs makes tremendous sense. Unfortunately, most of the PLC premise is contrary to the typical culture in higher education.

• In a PLC, staff must be committed to helping all students learn.
• In universities, there is an assumption that the student is responsible for his own learning and that the college should raise standards for admission and do a better job of screening to keep incapable students out of the program.
• In a PLC, there is an assumption that staff should work collaboratively to ensure all students have access to a guaranteed curriculum.
• In the university culture, personal academic freedom takes precedent, and there is no expectation that courses taught by different professors offer similar content or comparable ways of assessing students.
• In a PLC, assessment is used to inform our professional practice and respond to individual students who experience difficulty.
• In the university culture, assessments are used to assign grades.

Given the tremendous misalignment between the university culture and the PLC concept, I believe most districts will have to create their own programs for orientation to a PLC.

Working in Vertical Teams

December 23, 2008

By: Rick DuFour

We received an inquiry regarding how vertical teams would work together in a professional learning community. Here are some ideas:

Each team should work with teachers at the grade levels above and below it to explore the following questions:

1. What knowledge, skills, and dispositions do we want our students to acquire as a result of this course or grade level? This question is answered in part by clarifying with teachers in the grade level above what they consider the skills and knowledge students must have as they enter their grade level.
2. How do we know our students have acquired the intended knowledge and skills? What assessments can the two teams create together to monitor student learning as they make the transition from one course or grade level to the next? For example, if the sixth grade team has identified certain math skills as essential for students to master prior to entering sixth grade, then the fifth and sixth grade teams should work together to create assessments that provide evidence of student proficiency. Both teams should examine that evidence and discuss ways to strengthen the results.
3. What evidence can the receiving team gather about student learning that could be helpful to the sending team? Precise and specific feedback is far more effective than generalities. The statement “These kids don’t know how to write” is not helpful. “Forty percent of the students struggle with making transitions between paragraphs” could be very helpful to a team focusing its efforts on ways to benefit students.

Clarifying Collective Inquiry

December 9, 2008

By: Rick DuFour

We received a question about collective inquiry as it relates to professional learning communities. The writer indicated he was confused and wondered if it simply meant the comparison of test scores of the students of a collaborative team. He asked for clarification and examples. Here is my response:

Collective inquiry is the process in which educators engage as they make significant decisions. Rather than making decisions on the basis of mindless precedent (”This is how we have always done it.”) or personal preference (”This is how I like to do it. “), they begin by building shared knowledge or learning together—thus it is a collective endeavor. Inquiry simply means we are asking and answering questions together. The key to effective inquiry is making sure the question is significant—that resolving it will help us be more effective in achieving our fundamental purpose and goals. In a PLC, collective inquiry will address not one, but many of these questions:

• What is the fundamental purpose of our school?
• What do we know about the characteristics of the most effective schools?
• To what extent are these characteristics evident in our own school?
• What commitments do we need to make to one another in order to create a more effective school?
• What indicators will help us monitor our progress?
• What are the knowledge, skills, and dispositions we want all students to acquire as a result of every course, grade level, and unit of instruction?
• How should we pace our instruction to ensure all students have access to a guaranteed curriculum?
• What evidence will we gather to monitor each student’s learning?
• Do we agree on the criteria we will use in assessing the quality of student work?
• Do we apply the criteria consistently?
• How will we respond as a school when it becomes evident some students are not learning?
• How can we enrich and extend the learning for those who are already proficient?
• Who among us seems most effective in teaching each skill? How can we learn from each other?
• Which of our policies, programs, and practices support learning for all students? Which interfere with student learning?

It is important to understand two things: first, collective inquiry is a process—the way an organization approaches decision making by gathering evidence; second, the effectiveness of the process will depend on the extent to which the collective inquiry is focused on the correct issues.

Motivating Teachers to Collaborate

November 25, 2008

By: Rick DuFour

I recently responded to the following question regarding how to motivate those teachers who do not fully engage in the collaborative process:

Our district has adopted a PLC vision, which is fantastic. Two years ago, we were required to read your book Professional Learning Communities at Work™: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. It was a great read for me. I’m not sure that others gathered as much as I did from it. Since then our school has picked up about 15 new teachers unfamiliar with PLCs. Many of these teachers have never worked in such a collaborative environment, so our collaboration has been less than effective.

We have a set time on Monday afternoons to meet and set goals. During our initial meetings, I discovered that our 45 minutes of allocated collaborative time was simply not sufficient for the size team we had (eight members). We accomplished very little, and there was no way that each teacher made their voice heard. So, I opened up a Google Group to allow for the sharing of ideas. I thought this would be a great way for us to discuss back and forth throughout the week when we were at home or in our classrooms. We would be able to continue our conversations beyond those 45 minutes. All the teachers are logged into the group and have access to it, but there are only three teachers who consistently look on Google Groups. The three of us have found it rather useful, but the other teachers don’t seem to find it useful.

Which leads me to my next thought…many of these teachers are teachers who do “what is easy”…they design their day with what works for them (not the students). They have created teacher-centered classrooms, not learner-centered classrooms. They don’t seem to care about research or best practices…just whatever is easy. My questions for you are how do you motivate other teachers to “buy into” this idea of becoming a learner and a reflective teacher? How do you establish a PLC where there is trust and where there is willingness to hear all ideas? Do you have any suggestions on what I can try to do to help make our collaboration more effective?

I have a few suggestions. First, if the size of your team is interfering with full participation of its members, you could organize the team into two groups of four that meet on the weekly basis. Then, every third week or so, you meet as the full team. For example, one team can be the math team and the other the language arts team. Each team focuses on clarifying the outcomes, establishing pacing, developing common assessments, and brainstorming strategies for teaching specific skills and concepts to the students for that team’s subject area (math or language arts). Then each team presents its recommendations to the full team for review, discussion, and revision until all members commit to moving forward with the agreed-upon plan. These two sub-group teams should be structured to complete certain tasks—developing a list of essential outcomes for each unit, gathering instructional materials, developing common assessments, creating strategies for instruction, and integrating technology, etc.—and each member should be assigned to make specific contributions to the team. It should be impossible to avoid contributing.

Second, until you have common assessments, veteran teachers who are used to doing things a certain way will have little incentive to change their practice. You probably won’t be able to talk them into changing; however, if the results of the common assessments consistently demonstrate that their students are not achieving as much as other students, most teachers will be motivated to explore why. In the book Influencer: The Power to Change Anything, Kerry Patterson describes the most effective strategies to influence the thinking and behavior of others. Among the most powerful strategies he recommends are positive peer pressure, irrefutable data, and creating new experiences for people that cause them to act in new ways. The PLC process is designed to take advantage of all three. A collaborative team that has agreed on essential learnings and created SMART goals related to student learning creates positive peer pressure. Most teachers don’t want to be the person who prevents the team from achieving its goals. Common assessments make results transparent and reveal which students are or are not learning. Most teachers don’t want to be the person whose kids are not learning. And the team process of clarifying outcomes, establishing common pacing, developing common assessments, and analyzing results in a collaborative way creates new experiences for teachers who have worked in isolation.

The Role of Support Staff in a Professional Learning Community

November 11, 2008

By: Robert Eaker, Janel Keating, and Meagan Rhoades

Recently, an assistant superintendent for operations inquired about the role the support staff plays in a district that is committed to functioning as a professional learning community (PLC). While the answer to this query may seem obvious, the role of the support staff in a PLC may be overlooked by some. Let’s be clear; the support staff plays an important role in any school district, but this is especially true in a district that seeks to function as a PLC. For example, secretaries are often the first people parents contact when they call or enter a school. Bus drivers can undo in one afternoon what a teacher has worked on for weeks with a student. A smile and a kind comment from a cafeteria worker can light up a child’s day. Think about how it makes you feel when you get an unexpected smile or compliment. Think about the effect it has on the rest of your day! Kids who have positive interactions with the adults they come in contact with will walk into their classroom knowing that they are valued and ready to do the work.

A number of cultural shifts occur when a school or school district begins to function as a PLC. The first and perhaps most important big idea of a PLC is a shift from a focus on teaching to an intense focus on learning. It is important to recognize that this intense focus on learning is not limited to students. There is also an intense focus on the learning of adults—including the support staff!

The second big idea of a PLC involves a shift from a culture of isolation to a culture of collaboration exemplified by high-performing collaborative teams. Numerous studies have demonstrated the power of collaborative teams, both inside and outside the educational community. The benefit of teams is not limited to teachers. The real impact of a collaborative culture occurs when an entire school district, including the support staff, is organized into highly effective collaborative teams.

The third big idea of a PLC is a shift from a focus on intentions to a passionate focus on results. A PLC is a culture of continuous improvement. Therefore, school districts that function as PLCs ensure that every component of the district sets measurable goals and then focuses intently on achieving them. This is also true of the support staff whether it is transportation, food service, or office personnel support.

The Support Staff: Modeling Professional Learning Community Concepts

A PLC is a way of thinking about schooling. In a district that functions as a true PLC, the support staff models the concepts and practices that form the PLC framework. Here’s how:

Gaining Shared Knowledge: Seeking Out Best Practice

Basic to all professions is the idea that what professionals do is based on the latest and best information available at any particular time. The support staff in a district that functions as a PLC develops, plans, and implements the latest and best practices available. For example, secretaries will learn the very latest in technology or bus drivers will be up to date on safety issues. Para-educators study research-based intervention practices. The support staff in a school district that functions as a PLC is constantly learning best practices and seeking to improve.

Working in a Collaborative Culture

A PLC is also characterized by a culture of collaboration—collaborative teams planning together, analyzing results, and seeking ways to improve. Ideally, improvement doesn’t just happen in the classroom; it should happen throughout the school and district. Streamlining processes, making sure that everyone is reading out of the same book and working off the same page, is something that should happen in every area of a school district. A cultural shift should include every department within the district, otherwise it becomes more of a “some people” shift rather than a cultural shift.

A Culture of Experimentation

Members of a PLC do more than learn; they act—they experiment in ongoing attempts to get better. They are not satisfied with the status quo. They realize that to create a culture of continuous improvement, they must try new things and that becoming a PLC is a journey, not a destination.

An Intense Focus on Results

How well are we doing? What are the results of our efforts? These questions drive the support staff in a PLC. They set goals and monitor them frequently. They develop specific plans to celebrate and publicly recognize both individuals and groups when improvement occurs. In short, the support staff is driven by the question, “How well are we doing and how do we know?”

The White River Example

The White River School District located in Buckley, Washington, implemented a one-hour late start on Mondays to allow grade level department teams time to collaborate. At first there was an assumption that only teachers “had to” do this. Of course, if the goal is to change the culture of a school district to function as a PLC, where the culture of learning for all is valued, half of the employees cannot be separated and told indirectly that they will not be a integral part of this learning culture. The White River School District decided to act as if they really meant it and emphasized shared learning with everyone—especially the support staff.

What Did They Do?

In White River, the secretarial/office personnel staff was frequently excused from participating in events. We know the secretarial staff must be on duty to answer the phones, greet parents, and help staff, so it is difficult to require the approximately 60 staff members to be away from their desks. They couldn’t be pulled from their buildings for one hour every Monday during the late starts designed for collaborative team time. To solve this problem, the secretarial staff was split into two groups with each group meeting every other Monday. The groups focused on customer service training, and time management and technology skills. The same training was repeated for each group to ensure consistency with what they were learning.

What Happened?

It was wonderful to observe these very busy professionals continue to show up every other Monday, despite the fact that they knew a great deal of work would be waiting for them when they returned to their desks. One school secretary commented, “I always look forward to these Mondays because I know that not only will I learn something, but I always leave with a smile on my face.” Another secretary commented that what she loved about the technology training was that she could actually start using the new information as soon as she returned to her desk. An additional benefit of this shared learning was that the staff was able to get together as a group and get to know each other, something that doesn’t typically happen for the support staff in more traditional districts. As the White River support staff learned more about what others did and the issues they faced (and because they developed some personal connections), they felt more comfortable reaching out to one another to ask questions and, more importantly, help each other. Additional sharing began to occur outside these meetings. And over time, the training and interactions became increasingly site specific, focusing on training in programs that helped expedite the daily tasks of support personnel throughout the district.

What Did We Learn?

One of the resources that was used in White River’s customer service training was Give ‘em the Pickle by Robert Farrell (1998). A consistent theme in every customer service resource that was used in White River was how people are most successful in their jobs when they are also having fun. Mr. Farrell observes that for people to have fun in their jobs, they need to first be competent. He writes, “You show employees that you care about them and you value the work that they do by making training a priority.” As best practices in any field are refined and improved, training is required to keep staff up to date. Offering all staff members continual training and access to the best and most current practices for their positions enables them to perform their jobs more effectively.

We also learned about the importance of planned celebrations. We know that in the absence of ceremonies and celebrations, things we say we value lose credibility. Everyone wants to be recognized for doing difficult and complex jobs well. We learned that these celebrations cannot be left to chance. They must be planned and become an integral part of school and district culture.

Summary

What happens in classrooms never happens in isolation. Every interaction children have, from waking in the morning to walking into the classroom, has an effect on the attitude they bring to learning, their focus, and how they feel about the school environment. Establishing a true PLC is another way of saying, “It takes a village to raise a child.” It could also be put this way—there is never a time when interactions just “don’t matter.” Ensuring high levels of learning for all students requires high levels of learning for the adults who serve them. Helping more students learn more is truly a worthwhile goal. Anything less than the full participation of each and every staff member in this effort is unacceptable if we really mean it!

Does This Seem Like a PLC Format?

October 28, 2008

By: Becky and Rick DuFour

We recently received the following question:

At my school we have two mandatory PLC meetings scheduled per month in the mornings before our contract hours begin. We are in the process of preparing to establish schoolwide intervention blocks four days a week. Groups of two grade levels are working together along with our ESL staff to implement these blocks. I am excited about implementing these interventions in this coordinated manner, but in trying to plan for these intervention blocks, we have been working on compiling data from multiple assessments without being given time to meet. Our administrator just sent out a schedule of planned training sessions for one of our two PLC meetings each month beginning this month and continuing every month throughout the rest of the school year.

This does not seem like a PLC format nor does it seem to value our judgment and professionalism, but the administrator is not very approachable on the subject. Any suggestions?

Here is our reply:

We hope you and your colleagues will work with your principal to make this a great year of professional learning linked hand-in-hand with the student learning needs in your school. We advocate the following:

• Time for team collaboration is part of, not in addition to, the contractual workweek. We understand that many schools do adjust the start and end of the teacher contractual day once a week (or twice a month) to provide collaborative time, but those adjustments are then offset by allowing teachers to leave early that day or arrive late on other days so the total hours that they work are within the contractual workweek. We offer brief explanations of this option and a variety of other no-cost strategies for making time at the following link:
  http://www.allthingsplc.info/pdf/articles/MakingTimeforCollaboration.pdf

• Teachers and collaborative teams should be provided user-friendly data that quickly allows them to see how their students are doing in learning agreed-upon standards, on valid assessments, and in comparison to other students in the same course or grade level. We do not advocate that teachers should be expected to spend lots of time gathering, compiling, and disaggregating data. We recommend this work be completed by either a designated person(s) in the school and/or through the use of data software programs. In either case, it is imperative that teachers receive the information in a timely and user-friendly way.

• The work of collaborative teams of teachers clarifying essential learning outcomes (power standards); developing and administering common, formative assessments; analyzing students’ performance on those assessments; and developing systems of intervention/enrichment to meet the learning needs of each student is the best professional development possible! It represents job-embedded professional development. When teams of teachers engage in this ongoing collective inquiry and action research focused on their content, their students, and their own professional strengths and learning needs, learning for ALL increases. The best training to become a PLC is actually engaging in the work of collaborative teams (described above), being reflective, sharing and learning best practices with and from each other, testing out those new best practices in the classrooms with students, gathering new learning data, etc. In other words, learning by doing. We would strongly support the idea that PLC time be reserved for teachers to work on the PLC process.

• It appears that your school would benefit from a crucial conversation between teacher representatives and the principal. We recommend that a small group of representative teachers ask to meet with the principal to discuss your concerns. Set the tone by finding common ground; that is, discuss your assumptions about the shared hopes and dreams for your school. Acknowledge the good intentions of the principal and that you share his/her desire to create a great school for your students. Suggest some specific steps that TEACHERS are willing to take to help achieve that objective. Then indicate that you feel the success of your efforts will depend on the principal’s willingness to make certain commitments. Be very specific about those commitments. For example: (1) We ask that our collaborative meetings be reserved for teams to work on the PLC process; (2) We ask that you be willing to confront a teacher who is not contributing to our PLC process; and (3) We ask that we be provided with time to collaborate in mutually agreeable ways.

Should We Adhere to Our District’s Prescribed Curriculum or Engage in the Team Learning Process of a PLC?

October 8, 2008

By: Becky and Rick DuFour

We recently received the following message from a principal:

I’m trying to understand the relationship between essential outcomes and a math program. My interpretation is that the math program would support the students’ learning of the essential outcomes that our staff derived from our state’s standards.

My elementary school is the only elementary school of our eight in the district that has worked at implementing the tenets of a PLC. Someone at our central office is pushing the use of a program and its pacing guide as the district’s curriculum. I’m concerned because my staff worked hard last year at clarifying K–5 essential outcomes and developing common formative assessments. Either I misled my staff or I’m going to have to inform and influence my central office person to see the issue differently.

This principal’s dilemma is not unique. In this age of accountability and high-stakes testing, we have noticed an increasing number of teachers and principals experience a growing tension as they work together to build professional learning communities within districts and states which have adopted prescribed curriculum programs and textbooks that must be “implemented with fidelity.”

We contend any program or textbook should be 1) aligned with state and national standards and 2) considered a resource to support teacher dialogue and decisions rather than a mandate that eliminates the need for collaborative professional dialogue regarding the learning most essential to students.

Schools and districts benefit when each teacher (not just a committee or textbook publisher) participates in a collaborative process to clarify the essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions students must acquire. Ultimately, it is not the intended curriculum (the curriculum designated in a math program, textbook, or district curriculum guide) that will have the most powerful impact on student learning. For too long, districts have pretended that if they just purchase the right program and merely distribute it to individual teachers, each teacher will interpret it in a uniform way, assign equal priority to each standard, pace the curriculum consistently, assess student learning in a common way, etc. We have a century of evidence that this is not true. We cannot “teacher-proof” a curriculum.

Ultimately, it is the implemented curriculum, or what actually gets taught when the door gets closed, that has the far greater impact on achievement. Teachers who have worked with colleagues to become students of district resources and state standards, discussed with teachers at the next grade level what skills are most critical to students entering that grade, clarified the essential learnings, established common pacing, developed common formative assessments, and most important, committed to one another that they will honor the decisions made by the team are far more likely to provide students with the guaranteed and viable curriculum Dr. Robert Marzano has found impacts student learning so powerfully.

We would hope all teachers—through their collaborative study—will find value in and honor the district’s programs and textbooks as terrific resources. We also hope district central office staffs will honor the hard work and professionalism of teachers in every school and allow the programs and textbooks to be utilized as resources, not as lockstep curricula that remove teachers from curricular and instructional decisions.

Finally, results should drive the process for making this decision. If teams can demonstrate that their approach leads to higher levels of student achievement, the district should learn from those teams. If the results indicate student achievement is not improving, then teams should be willing to take a hard look at their curriculum, instruction, assessments, and adult learning needs.

Wishing You and Your Students a Great Year of Learning!

A Delicate Dialogue On Data

September 22, 2008

By: Charlie Coleman

Charlie Coleman is principal at Quamichan Middle School in Duncan, BC, Canada. Charlie has 18 years of experience in education and has been a Professional Learning Communities at Work^TM Associate since 2006.

Teachers and principals in a number of schools and districts have asked, “How do you have the tough conversation about data without offending teachers?” and  “What do you do in response to discouraging data?”

Here is an illustration I have shared in several workshops:

It was the end of the first report card term at Quamichan Middle School and a week before our faculty meeting where we would discuss data and analyze results for the first time. We had spent the fall taking the initial steps to becoming a PLC. Because of these conversations, staff knew this was coming and were both excited and anxious about this new focus on “results, not intentions.” As I consolidated the data into a manageable document, one particular class was a major cause for concern. The math class in question had an 85% failure rate! This stood out in stark contrast to the rest of the subjects and grades across the school. While we would not be sharing the data with teacher names attached, it would be quite easy for staff members to assume which class and teacher these results came from. I did not want this first delving into data to derail our PLC journey, so I took some proactive steps.

First, the teacher and I had a private conversation. I told her that while reviewing the Term 1 results, one of her classes really stood out as a cause for concern. Before she could feel attacked or defensive, I suggested that this must be a very tough class with a number of students who had obvious learning challenges. This set her at ease, and she was able to share with me a number of her concerns and challenges with this particular class. I apologized for not noticing the challenges sooner and asked her how I could help support her and these students. Together we brainstormed some possible solutions, and I promised to work toward some of them. She remembered that we would be sharing all our data at the next faculty meeting and was relieved to know that we would use the dialogue on data as a solution-seeking opportunity, not a finger-pointing exercise.

Following that conversation, we spoke to our learning assistance teacher about ways we might support this teacher and these students. The two teachers were encouraged to meet before the next faculty meeting to see if they could put an intervention plan in place. They worked on this in collaboration with our Student Support Team. By the time the entire faculty met to review the Term 1 results, there was a plan in place and the teacher felt comfortable sharing both the troubling results and the resulting support plan.

The intervention plan we put in place made a dramatic difference. That one class went from 85% failing at the end of Term 1 to 85% passing by the end of Term 2. This was cause for celebration! The process we followed also enhanced trust and collaboration. Staff now know that a focus on results does not mean punishing teachers. They also saw that from the results flows responsive intervention and improved student achievement.

Questions New Teams Should Consider Early On

September 4, 2008

By: Rick DuFour

Twice this week we received emails from teachers who were just beginning to work in collaborative teams. One of the first issues they tackled was grading and homework policies, and they immediately began to disagree. They asked for advice.

My first reaction is to suggest that while the issues these teams have tackled are important, they are not the most critical for a new team to consider. Assuming the primary purpose of their school is to help all students learn, their team should begin its work with questions such as:

1. What is it we want our students to learn? What are the knowledge, skills, and dispositions we expect each student to acquire as a result of each unit we teach in eighth-grade language arts?
2. How will we know if our students are learning? What evidence will we gather and consider collectively to monitor the learning of each of our students?
3. How will our team and our school respond when students don’t learn? Do we have a process in place that ensures students are provided with additional time and support for learning in a timely, directive, and systematic way that does not deprive students of access to new, direct instruction?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency?

Two other important questions the team should consider early on are:

1. What are the collective commitments we are prepared to make to each other regarding how we will operate as a team?
2. What are the specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and time-bound goals we are working interdependently to achieve, and for which we hold ourselves mutually accountable?

The questions about grading and homework practices should only be addressed after the team has tackled these critical questions. In fact, we have witnessed teams spend months debating homework policy as a way of avoiding the more substantive issues essential to a team working in a PLC.

When a team does turn its attention to grading and homework, I suggest it considers the excellent blog posting by Bob Eaker and Janel Keating entitled “Drilling Deeper in a PLC” at http://www.allthingsplc.info/wordpress which offers advice for considering these topics as schoolwide issues. We also address the issues in chapter ten of Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work^TM: New Insights for Improving Schools.

I recommend teams consider these general parameters when discussing establishing team policies:

1. Articulate the assumptions behind a proposed policy and cite evidence (rather than feelings or perceptions) to support your assumptions.
2. Consider whether the proposed policy is aligned with the purpose of ensuring all students learn at high levels.
3. Consider whether the policy will encourage or discourage learning and the effort necessary to learn.

For example, imagine the following dialogue:
Q. Should we assign homework?
A. Yes!
Q. Why should we assign homework?
A. Because homework helps students learn at higher levels.
Q. Is there evidence to support the assumption that homework helps students learn at higher levels?
A. Yes. Giving students the opportunity to practice skills and to receive precise feedback about the practice will help students learn. Robert Marzano’s synthesis of research confirms this.
Q. Is it likely that some students will not complete their homework on time or choose not to complete their homework at all even if we threaten them with zeros?
A. It is not only likely, it is a virtual certainty!
Q. If we are committed to helping all students learn, and we believe that homework is a critical element in their learning, should students be able to opt out of homework? Shouldn’t we adopt a policy that requires students to act in ways that are essential to their learning?
A. But we can’t “make” students do their work?
Q. There are schools that have established the expectation that students will complete their homework, and they have put structures in place to require students to do so. Why adopt a policy that in effect says, “homework is essential to your learning, but you don’t need to complete homework if you would prefer not to as long as you are willing to fail” when we know some students will choose that option? Do we teach students to be responsible when we allow them to choose to be irresponsible?

Here are a couple of other questions teams might consider:

• Should a student be required to do homework in order to practice skills in which he or she has already clearly demonstrated advanced proficiency?
•  Should a student who fails to demonstrate proficiency be required to devote additional time and effort to his or her learning?
• Should a student who has completed that requirement be given another opportunity to demonstrate his or her learning?
• Does providing a student with the opportunity for extra credit contribute to his or her proficiency in essential skills?

When teams begin with the premise of an unrelenting commitment to help all students learn, it will help lead them to the right answers to these questions.

Drilling Deeper in a Professional Learning Community

August 13, 2008

By: Robert Eaker and Janel Keating

The term professional learning community has become enormously popular, but the actual practices that form the framework of the professional learning community concept are much less evident in most schools. There are schools and school districts that adopt the term but never deeply embed the practices into the day-to-day culture of teaching and learning. Classrooms and students are the very heart of a school. Unless we are willing to affect what happens to students, the professional learning community concept will swirl around—but not within—classrooms.

This is more difficult than it might seem at first, given the aspects of teaching and learning that educators have been reluctant to address. Classroom practices such as homework and grading have traditionally been left to the discretion of individual teachers. Such practices often vary greatly from classroom to classroom, and can in fact have a negative effect on student learning.

How can a professional learning community approach emotionally charged issues that have been generally ignored? One important point to remember is: Above all, a professional learning community is a way of thinking. Regardless of the complexity of the issue, using the professional learning community way of thinking can increase the likelihood of success.

A Way of Thinking in a Professional Learning Community: Four Principles

Begin with Building a Guiding Coalition

Issues such as homework and grading are complex, with few simple answers. A professional learning community is characterized, in part, by a culture of continuous improvement. We are constantly asking the question, “Is there a better way?” On most issues, especially those that are emotionally laden such as homework and grading, it is virtually impossible for the entire faculty to initially engage in an effective dialogue. There are simply too many people involved, each with their own background, experiences and strong opinions. Typically, they end up talking at each other. On most issues a large group is ill-suited for building consensus.

It is usually preferable to start with a few staff members who can address the issue in a more professional and rational way. Creation of a guiding coalition is the first step that characterizes a way of thinking in a professional learning community. By beginning with a smaller group, the likelihood of building consensus later with the larger group is enhanced.

Build Shared-Knowledge

The first step in addressing a problem or issue is to gain shared knowledge; nowhere is the phrase “a way of thinking” more applicable. The very term “professional” in a professional learning community implies that what we do will be based on the latest and best information available. Therefore, when a school, team, or group functions as a professional learning community, the approach should not be to average opinions. It should be to first build shared knowledge about best practice—with “best practice” being defined as those practices that have a positive impact on student success. A major cultural shift occurs when members of a professional learning community seek to learn together.

This doesn’t necessarily mean simply seeking out research findings, although research studies are obviously an important source of information. Best practices may be found right within a team, within our own school, or in another school or neighboring district. Best practices may also be found in articles or books. In professional learning communities, groups seek to learn, and they don’t limit their sources.

Engage in Experimentation

Gaining knowledge about effective practices does little to improve a school unless we are willing to try them out. A willingness to experiment with new approaches is a significant aspect of a way of thinking in a professional learning community. Through experimentation we develop a culture of continuous improvement. Through experimentation we try to close the knowing-doing gap by recognizing that we won’t know unless we try.

Experimentation involves a willingness to move beyond the status quo. However, be cautious. We must avoid the “Yeah, but” syndrome—obsessing on the flaws of an idea. There are obvious downsides to any new initiative. If we refuse to try things simply because they are not perfect, we will never try anything. This goal is not a perfect approach, but rather, a more effective approach than our current practice.

A Focus on Results

How is “more effective” defined in a professional learning community? There is a tendency in more traditional schools to judge our efforts based on acceptability or how well staff like them, rather than on how a particular approach is affecting student learning. In a professional learning community there is a commitment to assess our practices based on their effect on student learning. We must recognize that every attempt at improvement will not be successful. The willingness to examine a failed attempt is a good thing if handled correctly. By thoroughly analyzing what happened and why it happened, we can learn many things. After all, this is the essence of a learning community.

An Example: Grading

There are few issues that elicit stronger emotions than grading and report cards. Yet, in most traditional schools, grading is left to the discretion of individual teachers. Grading practices range widely even within the same school, grade level, or course. Grading is an important component that affects student learning, and an area in most schools where there is potential for improved practice. How can we use the professional learning community way of thinking to improve grading practices?

Having the entire faculty address the topic of grading will prove problematic at best. It will be more effective to have a smaller task force tackle the issue first. Their charge should be clearly defined and the core of this charge is that they must first gain shared knowledge about effective grading practices. (Of course, these will vary depending on grade level, areas of study, etc. We must also recognize that there is no one best grading practice.)

After learning together, analyzing, and discussing, the task force should periodically update the entire faculty on their work, sharing what they are learning, engaging in a deep, professional dialogue and, most importantly, listening deeply to faculty concerns, points of view, and questions.

As a result of thoughtful analysis, discussion, and reflection, the group can recommend a different approach to grading that might be tried, perhaps by one or two teams at first. (Notice that we used the word “tried” here rather than “adopted.” Initially, we are simply experimenting with a different approach.) After experimenting with various grading practices, the group or groups will analyze the effects of the new approaches, and may adapt them and try again. It is important to constantly share with the larger group so we are moving the whole faculty towards a willingness to try a new—and proven—approach. However, we are also making the commitment to monitor new approaches and make adjustments as needed.

Summary

If schools are to function as true professional learning communities, they cannot avoid difficult and complex issues. Recognizing that a professional learning community involves a way of thinking will increase the likelihood of success when addressing such topics—topics that impact student learning. This way of thinking will prove effective on most issues, especially emotional ones such as homework practices or grading. Keep in mind that the quality of what we do will be determined, to a great extent, by the quality of how we think!