Based on your own experiences working in collaborative situations (whether an official "PLC" or not), what is a major challenge that you found to making collaboration happen successfully? What steps could an administrator take to address this challenge?
48 comments:
At my last school, I had two major experiences with PLC's. One was within my counseling department. But the most significant by far was within the Freshman Academy program I created and led for 7 years. It was a PLC before I had ever heard the term, and it was more of a true collaboration than I view typical PLC's which, at least in Durham and Chapel Hill, tend to be more "job-alike" in nature with colleagues from within the same department acting as a PLC.
My Freshman Academy program included over 20educators from 7 different departments: Counseling, English, Science, Social Studies, Health/PE, Exceptional Children's Services, and Administration. There were 4 teams of 4 teachers each, along with support personnel like two counselors, EC case managers, and an assistant principal specific to the Academy. The staff volunteered to participate so there really was not an issue of resistance to the collaboration work. The teams met daily during a common planning period to discuss student needs, meet with parents, and perform other planning tasks. Our daily meeting was a known non-negotiable. There were no PLC scheduling conflicts because of that built-in common planning time, no need to find time to meet.
The biggest hurdles experienced with the Academy were outside forces such as parents who misunderstood the mission during the pilot year (2004-2005), veteran non-Academy teachers who would not buy in to our work and talked down about it, or district officials who offered cautionary support to our work (because it was a very different approach to freshman transition which utilized its own master schedule, grouped students in classes and on teams heterogeneously vs. by ability, and afforded participating teachers certain perks). Other than the occasional difference of opinion regarding methodology or something related to the work, The Freshman Academy "PLC" meshed seamlessly with the culture of Jordan High School and is still going strong after 7 years.
So last night I posted about the PLC experience with which I enjoyed the most success. Today, I will reference those that have been slightly less successful: collaborations and PLC's with colleagues in three different counseling departments in which I worked.
The first two, one at a middle school and one at a high school in the same local district, were borderline toxic for me. At the middle school during my first year as a counselor, I was not "on the same page" as the other counselor (there was only two of us). It just was not a good match where two people trained in communication and people skills could not employ either effectively with the other person at all. My lack of experience probably didn't help much either- I would handle the same situation much more competently now.
After one year, I moved to a high school in the same district and had the worst experience ever, in terms of departmental collaboration. My department chair was married to a very important and powerful district-level official and she literally sabotaged my efforts whenever possible. I won't use this forum to detail the relationship but needless to say, I felt professionally victimized and could not remotely trust the person directly above me in the hierarchy. I was stabbed in the back numerous times and probably would have had a solid legal case had I pursued it. Without trust, everything else was doomed to failure.
At my last school, where I spent 8 happy and largely successful years, the collegiality in the department was much healthier and I was there when the term "PLC" became an expected norm in our district. There were occasional disagreements perhaps in ordering department priorities and the division of duties but they were small-scale compared to the last example.
In every case at each of the three schools, there was rarely ever any leadership or remedy provided by any principal (and I worked for 8 principals in 12 years at 3 different schools). I felt like they handled departmental disharmony much as I do as an elementary teacher's assistant observing arguments during recess kickball ("Work it out- I'm not getting involved."). The problem with that philosophy is that, while it would be a misuse of a principal's time to get bogged down in every professional disagreement that occurs on his/her faculty, it is wise for principals to identify those disagreements which are inhibiting the work of the department and consequently the service provided to stakeholders. I have seen many cases of collaborative problems (including as an outside observer) which were at stalemate, leading to toxic relationships. A little leadership and administrative intervention would have definitely helped and perhaps led to more productive collaboration. A principal reminding his/her folks of expected professionalism and expectations for collaborative outcomes, or even just listening and valuing the concerns of his staff, would at least help with staff morale and maybe even improve a PLC's harmony. A hands-off approach to every case of faculty disharmony is not effective leadership.
I've never been a part of an official PLC but have been part of collaborative teams since I began my career in education. I think some problems that can occur with collaboration are a lack of a focus, clear direction on how to accomplish a goal and trying to cover too many items/areas at once. As an administrator, or school leader, I think it's important to make sure everyone understands the goal of why we are collaborating and have a clear outline of how to get there.
My PLCs were very different for Prek then they were for K ones we were asked to attend. I have to agree with Liz whole heartedly when it came to the K PLC meetings. Most of the time the meetings took awhile to start because of a lack of focus and trying to cover too many items at once.
As an administrator I think I would make sure that this did not happen by having teachers particularly focusing on certain areas of school improvement. I remember halfway through last school year my principal attempted this. Our focus for a period of time was for PLCs to work on "safety net" students - those students who were the low achieving. Then we moved the focus of PLCs to work on equity and how to better address all students. We were given materials to use during meetings to guide us through discussions. However, I think some monitoring needs to be done to see that these materials are being used and becoming a focus of meetings because this did not always happen.
Collaborating with staff and getting input on how they see PLC work being beneficial would be important to making it effective as well.
The PLC experience I had as a teacher was pretty useless. We rarely, if ever, met. When we did meet, no one wanted to vary instruction so that we were all working at the same pace. The worst part of all was, if anything ever was accomplished, it was completely one-sided: I would do the team's planning all by myself and just give it to the other teachers.
I think a big reason this happened was because there wasn't any buy-in to the PLC model. I had personally participated in an extremely successful English PLC outside of school with other Teach for America teachers, so I knew that, when done correctly, PLCs are of enormous value; however, for many teachers in my school, PLCs were just "one more thing to do." They weren't given any time to truly understand or see the value in them, so they just didn't want to do it.
Buy-in can be tough. I liken it to books you're required to read in middle or high school. I am an avid reader and always have been but I hated to do required reading. It makes sense that collaboration which happens naturally or voluntarily (such as Jordan High's Freshman Academy staff) is easier to sustain than forced or required collaboration.
Also, one key piece of the puzzle for successful PLC's I think is built-in time during the school day. Teachers know they have to be at school then anyway- it's not on "their time." It worked really well for our Academy teams to have common planning periods. Some days, the planning time could get packed with parent conferences where other days, we'd have a brief 10-minute check-in but the key is we met daily and it was part of our routine.
Like students, when anything becomes routine, it's easier to swallow and get accustomed to the practice. PLC's which have to meet before/after school or who don't have time alocated during the day are burdened with "one more thing to do."
One of the largest challenges is full recognition and inclusion of ideas. In my experiences, groups often begin with great enthusiasm and excitement; however, as people's ideas and thoughts are not utilized, some individuals begin to disengage from the process. They feel isolated from the cohesion and collaboration of the group effort. Subgroups may begin to form and become more concerned with the micro-politics of the group dynamics, rather than the outcome of the collaborative work.
It is extremely important that each person involved in the group has the opportunity to participate and share their thoughts with other group members. Regardless of if their ideas appear to be sound or not, the individuals must be recognized for their work.
As for what the administration can do to remediate these challenges, I like what both Liz and Arpita said about making sure there is a vision for PLC. I think if a principal has a clear vision for PLCs and is able to effecitvely share this vision with his or her staff, it would be the first step in getting everyone in the school on the same page for quality collaboration. (Key word: quality. We know collaboration doesn't necessarily mean good collaboration.)
My experience with PLCs was not a great one. The reason being it seemed that the more things got forced on teachers the least likely they would be inclined to do them. There was already great collaboration within the department where I taught, but when it was made into a formal structure, people did not feel the necessity of it. Teachers felt that the system they had in place was working and addressing the issues that needed to be addressed. In my opinion as the administrator, you have to gauge and understand the nuances of the school or particular sub-sets within the school. If teachers are acting in manners that would essentially be that of a PLC without the label, then allow that to continue, while at the same time if other groups need to be put into a formal structure to adequately address needs and issues, then do that as well.
After reviewing Trea's comment, I was reminded of a meeting I had with a head of school. I mentioned PLC's to him and he was unfamiliar with the term. I explained the concept and the framework for Professional Learning Communities and the responded, "That already happens here. We do not need to re-make the wheel or place a new label on something that already occurs." If this is the case, is it better to re-work the system to strictly incorporate PLC work or is it better to allow teachers to continue doing what they are doing and simply place a label on their work?
I couldn't agree more with what has been said so far regarding the importance of teacher buy-in as a key component of collaborative success. Because there are so many other tasks to accomplish besides teaching, many teachers are frustrated with the idea of having another meeting. Like Elena said, teachers view it as "just one more thing to do" and aren't necessarily completely sold on the benefits that come from collaboration. Likewise, it is difficult to find the time to sell teachers on the idea by providing more education or opportunities to collaborate because of all of the other mandated staff development.
Another obstacle that I have seen to true collaboration is individual's unwillingness to admit that there may be a better way of doing things. The point of PLCs is collaboration and common assessment with the goal of identifying areas of strength and weakness. Looking at their students performance as a reflection of their own teaching is often difficult for people to do because it puts their weaknesses out in the open. Call it pride or whatever you will, but many people aren't comfortable in situations where they are that vulnerable. An atmosphere of acceptance that is forged through collegiality is crucial for people to engage in these types of conversation.
I agree with the comments that indicate that there has to be teacher buy-in for PLCs to work effectively. I just feel that PLCs have to be structured with a sense of direction and purpose. Teachers, in general, like to be good at what they do and teachers would like to buy-in but they must be lead to that place. The rejection or hesitation on the part of teachers about the use of PLCs, tends to revolve around what they see is a waste of time. I do not see teacher buy-in being a problem if there is a structured framework for PLCs. Just as students sense when teachers do not know what they are talking about, the same can be said about the relationship between teachers and administrators. The administrator needs to build the structure and framework of PLCs before introducing them and may need to model what needs to be done in the PLC, until it can become a self-sustaining tool.
At the school I taught at, half-way through the first year of PLC implementation, the administrative team started having their own PLC collaborative team that met every Thursday. While I'm sure this is not a new idea and that at other schools this already happens, this was a big step for our staff. When people saw that administrators were actually "practicing what they preached," it provided a lot of evidence for why pre-planned, intentional collaboration is important for everyone, especially our students.
I like your last comment, Elena, about administration attending their own PLCs and how they actually modeled what they were telling teachers to do. I also agree teacher buy-in is important for PLCs but I thought PLCs are required by many districts. Is that true? If that's the case teachers don't have a say in whether they attend PLCs or not. If so I feel its even more important to make sure PLCs are worth teachers time.
I really like what Matt has said. I think it is so important to have teacher buy-in but an important piece of this is listening and appreciating that every teacher has something to bring to the table. I have had experience with many teachers on the PreK team that were so closed off to any ideas. They were the type that knew what worked in their classroom, had been doing the same thing for years, and would continue to do so. Even with research and guidance being brought in for what is "best practice" for young children, they would listen, comment and then close the door and continue doing what they have always been doing.
Teacher buy in in this aspect is important but are there any suggestions to helping promote more collaborative teachers who want to learn new and research approved techniques? How to get teachers not to resort to their old techniques?
I also agree with what Trea said about teacher buy-in. There definitely needs to be a structured framework but even with this, my question is still, how do you get those teachers to put the PLC ideas into practice and use what they are sharing in their own classrooms (instead of doing their own thing)?
Is monitoring PLCs a good idea? I see it as good and bad. I think monitoring can help in making sure that PLCs remain effective and on task, and promote reassessing a framework or goal to work on. However, I can see it backfiring depending on who is doing the monitoring. I just have had experience with both types of PLCs where one can be vested and engaged in the process and another is not and essentially wastes what could have been a productive period of time.
Based on my experiences, it’s all in the presentation. An effective leader has an innate sense of how to do this. I have only had one administrator out of the nine I’ve worked for to create such an environment of learning. She looked at our school as a PLC in general. Her ability to foster a staff buy-in was awesome. She used the following steps each time she presented any type of reform or initiative.
1. First introduced herself as a learner and how she might learn from the process
2. Clearly detailed the purpose of the initiative or concept
3. Allowed for input to share ownership
4. Used the input to align the focus or plan to fit our school
5. Provided descriptive options for implementing the plan
6. Evaluated the plan’s effectiveness on an on-going basis
She was deliberate each time she presented information that affected the staff, whether as a whole staff or specific groups. This was a very effective approach for leading our staff at that time, in my opinion. As a result of her leadership, our school’s proficiency scores grew from 72 percent to 94 percent in 3 years…Not to mention that staff morale was at an amazing level, which is a key to a purposeful collaborative effort. I think I would try to do something similar to this process as an administrator at this point in our hypothetical world. Of course, there are other factors that might dictate otherwise. Humans will be humans…and we can’t ignore egos.
I was a part of an external PLC for 3 years. It was a math mentoring program sponsored by the CISCO Learning Institute in association with our district. The group consisted of about 35 math teachers and math coaches from across our district. We worked together to develop strategies that might assist new teachers and veteran teachers alike. We studied the curriculum and developed ways that we could integrate lessons across subject areas as well as integrate the use of technology. We also addressed learning styles and teaching styles, which was interesting to me.
This was a real positive experience for me. As with all groups, there was a level of dissention at times due to personal preferences more than anything. I think we all shared a level of respect for each other as we were all in this together. Understanding our strengths and weaknesses as a part of any group is essential. I think the weakness of utilizing PLCs lie in the initial presentation. If it is perceived as work, most close their minds to everything that follows, regardless of importance or purpose.
I was never a part of a formal PLC but I did collaborate with teachers. I agree with the comments made by Liz and Elena. In my experience any attempts to collaborate lacked vision and purpose. I really think that not understanding the value of collaborating greatly affected the overall attitude of the group. Another obstacle that we had was scheduling. A formal schedule was not made for our collaborations and that would make it very hard to meet.
I think that the plan outlined by David is a wonderful model of how to successfully introduce and implement new reforms. I think the most important part of that process is aligning the reform to meet the needs of your school. If the initiative can be aligned and adapted to fit the school goals, mission, and vision, it has a much greater chance of getting buy-in. This also plays into what has been discussed regarding the importance of PLCs having clear goals and purpose. As an administrator, I think that setting and modeling this component is crucial. Whether that means having your own administrative PLC, or working with the teachers in their PLCs, it is important that teachers see that the initiative is important to you. Taking part in the initiative shows your faculty that you value the process and think it is worthwhile. Simply telling people to do something without acknowledging that it is a learning process for all will limit its effectiveness. Getting constant feedback from teachers can also be a good way of making sure that the teachers are seeing the benefit of the collaborative effort. Part of this does depend on having a good rapport with your staff to the point that they respect what you do and see your actions as in their best interest.
I've had two different experiences with PLC work. My previous PLC team had a strong leader who understood the concept and vision of PLC work. She was able to guide us through our work quickly and efficiently allowing us ample time to work together on lesson plans or other things. My current PLC leader lacks understanding of what her role is, and we are often left with "I Don't knows" because she is not upto date with what is happening at the school on various levels.
As an administrator I would want my PLC's to run like those at my previous school. Elena mentioned in her post that her administrator would meet with the administrative PLC. I think this is the first step that needs to occur at the school, the leaders of the school must lead by example. My plan would be to have the administrative team meet once a month to discuss major items impacting the school. A template for an agenda would be shared with all PLC leaders so they implement it in their plc's. From there, PLC leaders would take back information to their teams, and each PLC would meet weekly. The first items on the agenda would be things that need to be done for the school, then they could focus on grade level work. I agree with Spencer, you must have a built in time during the day to ensure that the focus of all PLC members is on the work at hand. The final piece would bring me to PLC meetings, dropping in when available to join in conversations and answer questions if needed.
Many of you have mentioned the importance of focus and structure provided by the principal. So what specifically should the focus of PLCs be? What types of structures would help PLCs operate effectively?
Dr. G
Answering Dr. Graham’s question:
I think a PLC needs to be structured to assess student learning. I feel that PLCs tend to focus on the practice of instruction and not actually delve into whether students are effectively learning. Often times the focus remains on collaboration and while good, the real goal of assessing student learning is not a priority. Some one may have mentioned this before but, a time for PLCs that is built into the school day, would infuse collaboration and student learning into the day to day job description of teachers.
Before being labeled a PLC, I worked with another teacher on a daily basis to plan lessons, create assessments, and make data-based decisions. We did this for two years before the title "PLC" came along. When the title came, we were forced to keep documentation that we felt got in the way of doing our work. Instead of focusing on our students and teaching, we focused on writing down minutes from our meeting, completing charts of our progress, and making copies of our assessments to place in our PLC notebook that would be collected at the end of the year to sit on a shelf in the administrator's office. I felt that we lost the true meaning of a PLC when the busy work (my opinion) came with the title.
In response to Dr. Graham's question:
I agree with what Trea said about PLCs needing to focus on improving student achievement. While it is great to talk about common assessments and data and all of that good stuff, the whole point of these different tools is to make sure that every student is learning the necessary material. I agree that this focus often gets lost in the shuffle when teachers are trying to keep up with all of the paperwork that comes with these meetings. With that, I think that administrators can help cultivate this focus and common purpose by eliminating some of the unnecessary paperwork that is often required. I'm not saying that it is possible to eliminate documentation, but creating a simple form containing all of the necessary elements for evidence of collaboration could help eliminate some of the excess paperwork. Also, if administrators are actively involved in PLCs, some of the existing paperwork would likely become unnecessary.
Like Liz, I haven't worked in a PLC environment, but have a great deal of experience working in collaborative teams.
What does it take to make those experiences work successfully?
I've found that in large part, successful group work of any kind depends on a few key variables, including:
A. A clear;y defined project goal/objective
B. Willing participants (competency isn't always required, but willingness is)
C. Effective and open communication (willingness to make a compromise without compromising one's basic beliefs)
D. Adequate time management and resource allocation
Dr. G,
Per your questions:
So what specifically should the focus of PLCs be?
Loosely speaking, the focus of Professional Learning Communities in schools should be "to enhance learning communities--schools--through the practical implementation of target strategies by professional educators."
I know this gets a little wordy and may seem like a "Delusion Vision" but it's actually as direct as I can state it. David, Trea, and Heidi all provide specific examples of how this methodology can be implemented in various ways (and different schools/districts) based on the needs of that particular school/district and its staff.
What types of structures would help PLCs operate effectively?
One thing for certain is that it's unlikely that there's a "one size fit all" approach to PLCs.
As I alluded to in my last post, and as Spencer and others highlight, each school/ district often has varying needs, staff qualifications, key resources (time, financial, human), etc. This variable cannot be ignored.
Therefore, I appreciate Dr. G asking about sample "structures". I'll be the first to admit that I'm not entirely qualified, yet, to suggest specific structures but I'll take a stab at it. My disclaimer is this: "while some teachers may have negative experiences with these models, I believe that if they are implemented properly (following the outline in my 1st post) these structural blueprints could prove effective in any school". With that said, I'll recommend 1 variable structures that addresses key aspects of leadership, willing participants, clear goals, open communication, and time to complete objective.
1. Administrator meets with subject specific teachers, at each grade level, on a routine basis. This structure would also include school counselors and as well as any other relevant staff viewpoint that needed to be represented. Spencer's experience with the Freshman Academy at Jordan is similar to this model.
The primary difference here though, if I read Spencer's post correctly, is that the Head principal would be involved as well. I recognize that it's not feasible to meet daily under this structure, but having the principal directly involved could help minimize some of the external challenges posed by parents, central office, "non-academy teachers", and others.
Because the principal is the "top dog" in assessing what his/her school needs to improve the learning community, a PLC of this nature would be well positioned to not only brainstorm academic improvements, but implement them across the school as well.
Other benefits include:
1. Clear goals from the top-down
2. Valuable, collective input from the bottom-up
3. Providing staff with a sense of ownership over the process
4. Rotating membership on the PLC committee from year-to-year, allowing for more collaboration and fresh ideas
5. Effective platform for communication; b/t principals & entire staff, b/t teachers & support professionals like counselors, etc.
I maintain that while this structure depends on a visionary, effective leader and a willing, engaged staff, this blueprint itself could prove effective in most schools/districts nationwide.
Am I way off base here?? I welcome any feedback.
According to our reading by Mr. DuFour, PLCs should have 3 focuses- ensure that students learn, create a culture of collaboration, and judge the effectiveness of the PLC on results. Although I've been in a school with PLCs, I've never been told the purpose. As an administrator, it's important to properly train your staff in order for implementation to be effective. Yes, that requires money, but if it is an important initiative for the school, the budget, SIP, and staff commitment must show it.
Courtney mentioned Robert DuFour in her post. DuFour writes about the four questions that guide PLC work.
1. What do we want our students to learn?
2. How will we know when they have learned it?
3 How will we respond when some students don't learn?
4. How do we meet the needs of the students who have mastered it?
Administrators can structure their PLC work around these guiding questions to keep the focus. This will also help keep PLC's accountable for their work.
In order to structure PLC's the administrator has to place staff members on a team. Whether it's a grade level or content team, teachers need to understand that they are expected to work with their team to answer the four guiding questions. According to DuFour " a team is a group of people working interdependently to achieve common, specific, results-oriented goals for which members are mutually accountable". As an administrator I would work on building the camaraderie between teams by having them take part in team building activities.
I agree with Trea and Courtnee's comments that PLCs should focus on student learning. It seems, from various peoples comments, that this often was not the case of their PLCs. I appreciate the strategies and plans on how to implement successful PLCS that have been posted on this blog. I've found them extremely helpful and insightful, especially if I'll be in charge of PLCs.
Organic collaborations at our high school were successful but mandated PLC’s within grade courses were not, largely because the teachers did not respect each other’s diverse teaching philosophies and could not even agree on a common assessment to measure student achievement. Instead of dealing with this conflict productively, we agreed on continuing active partnerships with individual teachers we respected while pursuing psuedocommunities across grade levels. I have often wondered how a high school principal can foster authentic collaborations among teachers who do not fully respect each other’s abilities and/or philosophies and whether that includes workshops and trainings in soft skills such as teambuilding and conflict resolution? I see Maria just answered my question.
Like Liz, I too have learned much about effective PLC’s from this posting. In consulting our readings, there is frequent mention of teachers not only sharing common assessments, but also in teaching the same lessons. It seems as if this notion was noxious to the 8th grade teachers in Dr. G’s study, who benefited the least from the PLC’s, and I wonder if anyone has experience with this best practice at the high school level? Again, this philosophy obviously relies heavily on teacher buy-in and trust, judging from the near revolt that occurred earlier this year when Durham Public Schools tried to institute a highly prescriptive curriculum for instructing the Reading Street program for second graders.
I agree with Heidi in that “an atmosphere of acceptance that is forged through collegiality is crucial for people to engage in these types of conversation.”
Collaboration is a tough journey. In our ESL department, we went from our “pull-out” program which centered in working with small groups, to collaboration through co-teaching, which requires joint collaboration in planning, delivery and assessment of instruction. Not easy.
The greatest hurdle for us was making the time to collaborate and creating a culture of parity. How can the teacher with content expertise and the teacher with scaffolding expertise, be considered equal by students? It continues to be a journey. One that challenges our notions of teaching and learning, that stretches us by forcing us to be transparent, to experience positive interdependence and to grow. As one of my undergrad professors said: growth is only achieved through mental agony”.
David,
Thank you for posting the steps that one principal took to guide reforms in her school. It is very helpful for me to hear of the the details behind effective leadership from an anecdotal perspective
PLCs may address new topic each year depending on the needs of the school and the grade level. I understand that they predominantly focus on student achievement; however, i believe they can be adjusted to the needs of individual environment.
My experience with PLCs has been more of a headache than anything else. My previous principal implemented the PLC model and forced us to attend countless professional development seminars on the effectiveness of PLCs; however, the administration would assign us a time to meet and would even attend our meetings to ensure the agenda was followed. Of course, a truly effective PLC is one that is teacher initiated, not forced. So, as a school we only attend PLCs because we are required, but we don't truly get anything out of them.
As stated my earlier post, I the foundation of any PLC has to begin with a connecting presentation. To disregard the importance conditioning your audience before communicating a goal, initiative or whatever, is setting the stage for dissent and failure. When your audience is not with you, your goals and desires fall upon deaf ears.
In my opinion, the focus of any PLC should be based upon whatever is collectively determined as an area of improvement for a given school. When goals are set to the benefit of many, they tend to be more easily accepted and sought after. The challenge comes with how one finds a positive amid a negative. As I coach, I often set goals with my teams using positives as negatives in order to foster continued growth. Complacency can sometimes breed self-centered agendas, not to mention lax effort.
I believe, to operate an effective PLC a lot of attention has to be given to school culture. Simply allotting time during the day to congregate is not addressing its effectiveness. You can meet everyday with any group and not accomplish a thing when the focus is not on the goal, but the time. To me, it really depends upon the school. Setting measurable guidelines and timelines with your staff in mind that allows for flexibility is valuable. Allowing the PLC to fit your staff and school culture would be of the upmost importance. Over time, the effectiveness of the PLC will reveal itself, whether positively or negatively. I would bet that the end result would ultimately be directly related to the initial presentation.
As an administrator I think that you need to effectively train your teachers and actually tell them about the goals of a PLC so that they understand the end goal. You might also provide them with a sample agenda and otherwise leave them alone. To keep them accountable, ask that they send you the minutes from PLC meeting to ensure that they're meeting. I think a lot teachers view PLCs as a mechanism for administrators to micro-manage teachers.
I agree with Matt that the weight that you give to all the ideas presented in a PLC will often times will be indicative of the amount of buy-in you'll receive from teachers. And, I agree that often times sub groups will form. Currently, I have basically abandoned my Social Studies PLC for a much smaller group of two other C&E teachers. As a sub group we are a lot more effective than when we were in the larger Social Studies PLC.
I found these guiding questions in the voice thread helpful in framing my response to this question.
PLC guiding questions: "What do you want students to be able know and do?" "How will you know?" "What will you do if they don't get it?" and "What will you do if they already know it?"
The PLCs that I have participated in have arrived at general answers to the question of what we want students to know that don’t actually provide guidance for instruction. PLCs have answered this question in such a way that substantive conversations regarding instruction have not taken place in the process. Neither have these PLCs managed to answer the second question regarding how we will know whether students have learned because none of them have gone through the process of creating common assessments that both inform instruction and provide opportunities to have conversations about exactly what is being taught. PLC conversations lack specificity regarding what teachers need to teach and what students need to know. Up until this year I do not think there was clarity regarding exactly which students were getting it and which ones were not until the EOG “autopsy” was completed at the end of the school year. If you are not getting answers regarding who is getting it and who is not getting it until the results of the autopsy come back at the end of the year then the question of “what do we do for those kids that aren’t getting it becomes moot. The question of what to do for those kids that aren’t getting it was, for the most part, not being addressed. An additional issue faced in the context of this question was a lack of coordination on the part of regular classroom teachers and interventionists.
One responsibility that the principal has is to stay on message. Maintain a focus on student learning and the role the PLC is expected to play in student learning. Provide specific expectations for what is to be accomplished in PLCs. Ensure that PLCs are discussing and creating authentic formative and common assessments. Ask them how they are identifying students that need help and what systems of intervention the PLC has generated to reach struggling students. Assessments, interventions and results all need to be maintained in such a way that results are readily verifiable. Insist on seeing verifiable evidence of these efforts in frequent meetings with PLCs and individual teachers as necessary. Provide any and all support needed to help teachers and support staff make these changes. Provide opportunities for staff to communicate needs that will support achieving objectives. If needs are identified, proactively provide resources to fulfill that need.
There has been considerable discussion of the collegiality and trust required to have substantive discussions based on the driving questions of PLCs. Team building that results in collegiality and trust in other contexts of school life can be turned to use in the context of PLCs as well. Trusting relationships built around almost any activity you can think of requiring prolonged cooperative, collaborative effort can do a lot to increase the degree of mutual trust and closeness among staff members. This trust can subsequently be brought to bear on the important work of PLCs. The staff at my own school is now making headway in effectively answering some of these questions that inform PLCs based on their collegial experiences in non-academic contexts.
I would like the opportunity to talk more about David's idea of initial presentation during class tomorrow. What ground work needs to happen in terms of preparing a school to undertake the effective implementation of PLCs. To me it seems ok to present something that sounds like it is going to be hard work as long as a compelling reason to pursue that hard work is offered. "Waiting on Superman" was a pretty compelling story. An individual school's performance and data on what percentage of the kids in the school will ultimately fail is also pretty compelling.
The one question that I have is where do you begin when you have a school that does not have a clue as to what a PLC is or what it should look like?
What is the ground work that needs to be laid in order to begin a PLC community? How do you promote teacher- buy to facilitate a learning community?
David's comments about the structure of PLC's was extremely helpful and I hope that we can discuss this more in class.
Although I have never worked within an official PLC, I have worked with colleagues in collaborative situations. I have found that a major challenge to making collaborative situations effective is having a member or members who are not interested and act as such. I think this is due to many different factors: not being a team player (only promoting one’s own agenda/ideas), not understanding the end goal, or not caring about the successfulness of the collaboration.
I think as an administrator one must point out the end goal, identify roles of each group member, and have some formal way for groups to illustrate progress throughout the process. I think the last step is important because many times groups begin full of vigor and great optimism, but as time passes the group loses its eagerness and sense of achievement.
The focus of PLCs should be simply to work together to implement practices that improve student learning.
I totally agree with Courtnee that before the label of PLC came about, teachers worked together to collaborate on various activities to improve student learning; however, since teachers have been grouped and labeled Professional Learning Communities with various guidelines added, much that had been done (positively) prior to this “movement” has been stifled.
Post a Comment