Check out this great video
The idea of improving and marketing schools by developing professional learning communities is currently in vogue.
The movement to develop professional learning communities can take its place, but only if educators reflect critically on the concept's merits.
What are the “big ideas” that represent the core principles of professional learning communities? How do these principles guide schools' efforts to sustain the professional learning community model until it becomes deeply embedded in the culture of the school?
The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn.
This simple shift—from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning—has profound implications for schools.
School mission statements that promise “learning for all” have become a cliché.
But when a school staff takes that statement literally—when teachers view it as a pledge to ensure the success of each student rather than as politically correct hyperbole—profound changes begin to take place.
The school staff finds itself asking, What school characteristics and practices have been most successful in helping all students achieve at high levels?
How could we adopt those characteristics and practices in our own school? What commitments would we have to make to one another to create such a school?
What indicators could we monitor to assess our progress?
When the staff has built shared knowledge and found common ground on these questions, the school has a solid foundation for moving forward with its improvement initiative.
As the school moves forward, every professional in the building must engage with colleagues in the ongoing exploration of three crucial questions that drive the work of those within a professional learning community:
The answer to the third question separates learning communities from traditional schools.
Here is a scenario that plays out daily in traditional schools. A teacher teaches a unit to the best of his or her ability, but at the conclusion of the unit some students have not mastered the essential outcomes.
On the one hand, the teacher would like to take the time to help those students. On the other hand, the teacher feels compelled to move forward to “cover” the course content.
If the teacher uses instructional time to assist students who have not learned, the progress of students who have mastered the content will suffer; if the teacher pushes on with new concepts, the struggling students will fall farther behind.
What typically happens in this situation?
Almost invariably, the school leaves the solution to the discretion of individual teachers, who vary widely in the ways they respond. Some teachers conclude that the struggling students should transfer to a less rigorous course or should be considered for special education.
Some lower their expectations by adopting less challenging standards for subgroups of students within their classrooms. Some look for ways to assist the students before and after school.
Some allow struggling students to fail.
When a school begins to function as a professional learning community, however, teachers become aware of the incongruity between their commitment to ensure learning for all students and their lack of a coordinated strategy to respond when some students do not learn.
The staff addresses this discrepancy by designing strategies to ensure that struggling students receive additional time and support, no matter who their teacher is.
In addition to being systematic and schoolwide, the professional learning community's response to students who experience difficulty is
The systematic, timely, and directive intervention program provides an excellent example. Every three weeks, every student receives a progress report.
Within the first month of school, new students discover that if they are not doing well in a class, they will receive a wide array of immediate interventions.
First, the teacher, counselor, and faculty advisor each talk with the student individually to help resolve the problem.
The school also notifies the student's parents about the concern.
In addition, the school offers the struggling student a pass from study hall to a school tutoring center to get additional help in the course.
An older student mentor, in conjunction with the struggling student's advisor, helps the student with homework during the student's daily advisory period.
Any student who continues to fall short of expectations at the end of six weeks despite these interventions is required, rather than invited, to attend tutoring sessions during the study hall period.
Counselors begin to make weekly checks on the struggling student's progress. If tutoring fails to bring about improvement within the next six weeks, the student is assigned to a daily guided study hall with 10 or fewer students.
The guided study hall supervisor communicates with classroom teachers to learn exactly what homework each student needs to complete and monitors the completion of that homework.
Parents attend a meeting at the school at which the student, parents, counselor, and classroom teacher must sign a contract clarifying what each party will do to help the student meet the standards for the course.
Even though your School serves more than 4,000 students. School should find a way to monitor each student's learning on a timely basis and to ensure that every student who experiences academic difficulty will receive extra time and support for learning.
Schools that are truly committed to the concept of learning for each student will stop subjecting struggling students to a haphazard education lottery.
These schools will guarantee that each student receives whatever additional support he or she needs.
Educators who are building a professional learning community recognize that they must work together to achieve their collective purpose of learning for all.
Therefore, they create structures to promote a collaborative culture.
Despite compelling evidence indicating that working collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in many schools continue to work in isolation.
Even in schools that endorse the idea of collaboration, the staff's willingness to collaborate often stops at the classroom door.
Some school staffs equate the term “collaboration” with congeniality and focus on building group camaraderie.
Other staffs join forces to develop consensus on operational procedures, such as how they will respond to tardiness or supervise recess.
Still others organize themselves into committees to oversee different facets of the school's operation, such as discipline, technology, and social climate.
Although each of these activities can serve a useful purpose, none represents the kind of professional dialogue that can transform a school into a professional learning community.
The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional learning communities is a systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve their classroom practice.
Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team learning.
This process, in turn, leads to higher levels of student achievement.
I would use a scenerio in an American School, At Boones Mill Elementary School, a K-5 school serving 400 students in rural Franklin County, Virginia, the powerful collaboration of grade-level teams drives the school improvement process.
The following scenario describes what Boones Mill staff members refer to as their teaching-learning process.
The school's five 3rd grade teachers study state and national standards, the district curriculum guide, and student achievement data to identify the essential knowledge and skills that all students should learn in an upcoming language arts unit.
They also ask the 4th grade teachers what they hope students will have mastered by the time they leave 3rd grade. On the basis of the shared knowledge generated by this joint study, the 3rd grade team agrees on the critical outcomes that they will make sure each student achieves during the unit.
Next, the team turns its attention to developing common formative assessments to monitor each student's mastery of the essential outcomes. Team members discuss the most authentic and valid ways to assess student mastery.
They set the standard for each skill or concept that each student must achieve to be deemed proficient. They agree on the criteria by which they will judge the quality of student work, and they practice applying those criteria until they can do so consistently.
Finally, they decide when they will administer the assessments.
After each teacher has examined the results of the common formative assessment for his or her students, the team analyzes how all 3rd graders performed.
Team members identify strengths and weaknesses in student learning and begin to discuss how they can build on the strengths and address the weaknesses.
The entire team gains new insights into what is working and what is not, and members discuss new strategies that they can implement in their classrooms to raise student achievement.
At Boones Mill, collaborative conversations happen routinely throughout the year.
Teachers use frequent formative assessments to investigate the questions “Are students learning what they need to learn?” and “Who needs additional time and support to learn?” rather than relying solely on summative assessments that ask “Which students learned what was intended and which students did not?”
Collaborative conversations call on team members to make public what has traditionally been private—goals, strategies, materials, pacing, questions, concerns, and results.
These discussions give every teacher someone to turn to and talk to, and they are explicitly structured to improve the classroom practice of teachers—individually and collectively.
For teachers to participate in such a powerful process, the school must ensure that everyone belongs to a team that focuses on student learning. Each team must have time to meet during the workday and throughout the school year.
Teams must focus their efforts on crucial questions related to learning and generate products that reflect that focus, such as lists of essential outcomes, different kinds of assessment, analyses of student achievement, and strategies for improving results.
Teams must develop norms or protocols to clarify expectations regarding roles, responsibilities, and relationships among team members. Teams must adopt student achievement goals linked with school and district goals.
For meaningful collaboration to occur, a number of things must also stop happening.
Schools must stop pretending that merely presenting teachers with state standards or district curriculum guides will guarantee that all students have access to a common curriculum.
Even school that devote tremendous time and energy to designing the intended curriculum often pay little attention to the implemented curriculum (what teachers actually teach) and even less to the attained curriculum
(what students learn) (Marzano, 2003). Schools must also give teachers time to analyze and discuss state and district curriculum documents.
More important, teacher conversations must quickly move beyond “What are we expected to teach?” to “How will we know when each student has learned?”
In addition, faculties must stop making excuses for failing to collaborate.
Few educators publicly assert that working in isolation is the best strategy for improving schools. Instead, they give reasons why it is impossible for them to work together: “We just can't find the time.” “Not everyone on the staff has endorsed the idea.” “We need more training in collaboration.”
But the number of schools that have created truly collaborative cultures proves that such barriers are not insurmountable. As Roland Barth (1991) wrote,
Are teachers and administrators willing to accept the fact that they are part of the problem? . . .
God didn't create self-contained classrooms, 50-minute periods, and subjects taught in isolation.
We did—because we find working alone safer than and preferable to working together. (pp. 126–127)
In the final analysis, building the collaborative culture of a professional learning community is a question of will.
A group of staff members who are determined to work together will find a way.
Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on the basis of results. Working together to improve student achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the school.
Every teacher team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence of progress.
The focus of team goals shifts. Such goals as “We will adopt the Junior Great Books program” or “We will create three new labs for our science course” give way to “We will increase the percentage of students who meet the state standard in language arts from 83 percent to 90 percent” or “We will reduce the failure rate in our course by 50 percent.”Schools and teachers typically suffer from the DRIP syndrome—Data Rich/Information Poor.
The results-oriented professional learning community not only welcomes data but also turns data into useful and relevant information for staff. Teachers have never suffered from a lack of data. Even a teacher who works in isolation can easily establish the mean, mode, median, standard deviation, and percentage of students who demonstrated proficiency every time he or she administers a test.
However, data will become a catalyst for improved teacher practice only if the teacher has a basis of comparison.
When teacher teams develop common formative assessments throughout the school year, each teacher can identify how his or her students performed on each skill compared with other students. Individual teachers can call on their team colleagues to help them reflect on areas of concern. Each teacher has access to the ideas, materials, strategies, and talents of the entire team.
Freeport Intermediate School, located 50 miles south of Houston, Texas, attributes its success to an unrelenting focus on results.
Teachers work in collaborative teams for 90 minutes daily to clarify the essential outcomes of their grade levels and courses and to align those outcomes with state standards.
They develop consistent instructional calendars and administer the same brief assessment to all students at the same grade level at the conclusion of each instructional unit, roughly once a week.
Each quarter, the teams administer a common cumulative exam. Each spring, the teams develop and administer practice tests for the state exam.
Each year, the teams pore over the results of the state test, which are broken down to show every teacher how his or her students performed on every skill and on every test item.
The teachers share their results from all of these assessments with their colleagues, and they quickly learn when a teammate has been particularly effective in teaching a certain skill.
Team members consciously look for successful practice and attempt to replicate it in their own practice; they also identify areas of the curriculum that need more attention.
Freeport Intermediate has been transformed from one of the lowest-performing schools in the state to a national model for academic achievement.
Principal Clara Sale-Davis believes that the crucial first step in that transformation came when the staff began to honestly confront data on student achievement and to work together to improve results rather than make excuses for them.
Of course, this focus on continual improvement and results requires educators to change traditional practices and revise prevalent assumptions. Educators must begin to embrace data as a useful indicator of progress.
They must stop disregarding or excusing unfavorable data and honestly confront the sometimes-brutal facts.
They must stop using averages to analyze student performance and begin to focus on the success of each student.Educators who focus on results must also stop limiting improvement goals to factors outside the classroom, such as student discipline and staff morale, and shift their attention to goals that focus on student learning.
They must stop assessing their own effectiveness on the basis of how busy they are or how many new initiatives they have launched and begin instead to ask, “Have we made progress on the goals that are most important to us?”
Educators must stop working in isolation and hoarding their ideas, materials, and strategies and begin to work together to meet the needs of all students.
Even the grandest design eventually translates into hard work. The professional learning community model is a grand design—a powerful new way of working together that profoundly affects the practices of schooling.
But initiating and sustaining the concept requires hard work. It requires the school staff to focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and hold itself accountable for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement.
When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these principles, their collective ability to help all students learn will rise. If they fail to demonstrate the discipline to initiate and sustain this work, then their school is unlikely to become more effective, even if those within it claim to be a professional learning community.
The rise or fall of the professional learning community concept depends not on the merits of the concept itself, but on the most important element in the improvement of any school—the commitment and persistence of the educators within