Empowering teachers in professional learning committees to improve student learning
Content
Empowering teachers in professional learning committees to improve student learning
by Katherine Halas Moulton
A Report submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 6204 Memorial University of Newfoundland March 17, 2013 St. John’s Newfoundland
Table of Contents
Professional Learning Communities Need for Teacher-driven Change Providing Proof of Effectiveness All Systems Go Team Focus School-based Teams Goal Orientated, Data Driven, Empowered Teachers SMART Goals Data Driven Action Research Empowered Teachers Leadership Strong Principal Building Trust Difficult teachers Facilitating change Scheduling Change Technological Solutions Conclusion References Appendix A
1 1 3 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 10 10 10 12 14 14 15 16 18 21
ii
1
Our mission is to provide a safe and positive learning community where all students learn and reach their potential. - School X’s Mission Statement Most levels of educational bodies’ expressed purpose is to meet the needs of all learners (National Commission, 2003; NB Department of Education, 2010). It is their raison d’ être. Moreover, educators’ purpose is not merely to give the students the opportunity to learn rather to ensure that they learn (Dufour, 2013b). The overwhelming challenge and complexity of this task can be met through empowering teachers in professional learning communities (PLC’s) to continuously improve their practice. Professional Learning Communities Need for Teacher-driven Change Many factors work against successful learning for all. To begin with schools are challenged by trying to evolve in an archaic school system. Today’s schools were designed 300 years ago as a hierarchy system meant to produce workers for all levels of the work force (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker & Karhanek, 2004, p.2; Mitra, 2013). Another challenge is mythology that heroic teachers can work in isolation to meet the needs of their students (Dufour, 2013b) or that transformational change can come from the outside (Fullan, 2001, as cited in Dufour et al., 2004, p. xv). The answer to solving educational issues is not only an amazing educator in the classroom, it is a collaborative team approach that involves every educator in the building working as a system (Fullan, 2010). Transformational change can come from a collegial collaboration of professionals. Michell and Sackney (2001) define the PLC groups as those who take “an active, reflective, collaborative, learning-oriented and growth-promoting approach toward both the mysteries
2
and the problems of teaching and learning” (p. 2). The National Commission on Teaching (2003) calls for an “end to solo teaching in isolated classrooms…. Collegial interchange, not isolation, must become the norm for teachers.” The power of PLC’s is in the availability of the expertise of colleagues in similar situations to set goals for improvement, to share and test ideas, and to adjust teaching based on the results. The culture of the school needs to evolve to reflect new norms of making sound decisions about teaching though action research, and by using the preponderance of evidence (Reeves, 2013). Dufour (2013a), states that: The first step is to embrace learning as the fundamental purpose through which we evaluate every aspect of our practice; we embrace the idea that we need to build a collective culture and collectively take responsibility for the success of all students; and finally we become results driven-evidence-based practitioners. However, changing the way a school operates is complicated. If people buy-in to the need for change and feel ownership for change they will be more willing to make the changes necessary. Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2001) narrow down a body of school improvement literature research to identify several functions that are essential for instructional leadership including building the vision, building trust, collaboration, and teacher development. Mitra’s (2013) model of self-organized learning environments that can be applied to adult learning in a PLC which has a core of technology, collaboration, and encouragement. Of course putting together a group of teachers and asking them to collaborate is no guarantee of success. Individuals within the groups need a nurturing environment where they are comfortable asking for help and admitting when they don’t know something, as well as time to construct meaning, and to do self-reflection (Dufour, Dufour & Eaker, 2008; Kappler Heweitt, 2011; Lauer & Matthews, 2007; Roselle, 2011). Similarly, Kappler Heweitt (2011) offers another
3
non-negotiable rule for PLC’s: they must help teachers put what they learn into action which means that the ideas that come out of the PLC’s cannot remain theoretical. Providing Proof of Effectiveness As administrators implementing a change that will require staff to attend extra meetings, do more work, and be un-comfortable in moving towards personal growth they should be prepared to justify the initiative. Some staff members may believe that the compelling dream that all students will learn cannot be accomplished for a myriad of reasons. Before change can begin teachers need to believe that the task is achievable. Bandura’s research on self-efficacy (1993) shows that individuals need to believe that they can change their environment: if they believe that they do not have the power to change their environment or if they are plagued with self-doubt about their own efficacy they may not be even willing to put a real effort into these learning communities. One of the ways to build teachers’ perception of self -efficacy is by vicarious experiences (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 164-165). Furthermore, by taking the time to go through the scientific evidence that backs up the use of PLC’s the administrators can model they are using of preponderance of evidence to guide change initiatives. One could use the examples of other countries from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data to discuss change. The head of PISA, Schleicher (2012) uses data to show that it is possible to improve learning for even nations as a whole. He claims that PISA data comparisons show that low performing systems leave teachers alone in their classrooms; whereas, high performing systems provide an environment for teachers to work together to frame good practices, to form
4
intelligent pathways, to grow in their careers, and develop them with the skills they need to be innovative and creative. These are of course the functions of PLC’s. A powerful example of success, cited by both Dufour (2013b) and Fullan (2010), is the Sanger Unified School District which is showing academic improvements in every one of its schools despite 80% poverty and minorities. Since their implementation of PLC’s they have become the highest achieving district in California in terms of progress. Their scores have improved by 39%. They created a district mantra that has two essential pieces: stop blaming the kids; and educators must focus on creating the conditions necessary for students to learn at higher levels. Teachers were expected “to collaborate, to develop a guaranteed curriculum, to monitor student learning through common assessments, to have plans for interventions when students were struggling, and to have all of the educators throughout the system help one and other learn in order to be more effective” (Dufour, 2013b). Hafizur Rahman’s (2011) study in Bangladesh shows that even in a context where there is no culture of professional collaboration that with time PLC’s can be effective. Despite being volunteers initially the teachers in his study were uncomfortable with having honest collegial dialogue. After few sessions together there was passionate debate about matters focused on their classrooms. Soon teachers would come to sessions with their own identified issues to be discussed and they became very results orientated. Participants stated they felt that the process had positively enhanced their teaching practices and they were committed to continuing the practice.
5
All Systems Go Team Focus Michael Fullan (2010) used the term “all systems go” in his b ook by the same name as a motto to discuss the need for all parts of the educational system to work together towards common objectives. Schleicher (2012), in his analysis of the PISA data, shows that consistency across the system can lead to high national achievement. He holds up Finland, which is a consistently high performing country, as exemplary as it has only a 5% variation in scores between schools across the nation. This Finnish example embodies the power of a national policy of learning for all. Some regions are seeking this consistency by having all their administrators do the Dufour’s PLC training with the including the Findlay City Schools (MacIntosh & White, 2007), and the province of New Brunswick. School-based Teams Even though Fullan was discussing all systems go in terms of large educational systems the concept can also be applied to consistency within the school. All members of the staff should be striving towards the same vision including the educational assistants, conflict intervention workers, and even the cafeteria staff. If, for example, the cafeteria workers inadvertently reward the students who sneak out of class early by feeding them they are undermining the system. However, if the cafeteria could partner with the teachers and the community to do food literacy projects and have students working in the kitchen or even growing their own healthful food like a school in New Brunswick (Beers, 2012) they would be part of this collaborative culture. Individual schools should consider whether it would be
6
beneficial to include the support staff in the PLC’s or at least use appropriate moments to call on their expertise and support in initiatives. Even though it is a challenge to get the whole staff working collaboratively it is important to realize that having the whole school working together is more than the ideal: it is necessary for success. Reeves (2010)’s work shows that low level implementation of reform strategies is actually less effective then no implementation of strategies; however, when there is virtually full and deep implementation throughout the system then, even with demographics of over 90% poverty and minority, 90% success rates on state testing is achievable (as cited in Fullan, 2010, p. 55). There is a belief that persists that educational problems can be solved by hiring individual heroic teachers who make a difference for their students while ignoring what is going on in the class next door (Dufour, 2013b). Reeves (2010) also discusses to mystical professionals who get everything right the first time; instead, he argues, expertise is “based upon the willingness to try techniques, get feedback that is honest, accurate, specific, and timely, and then improve performance. Good learning communities can provide that growth and feedback for teachers. Goal Orientated, Data Driven, Empowered Teachers SMART Goals Many schools, business, and government organizations are using SMART goals for PLC’s and other forms of transformative improvement planning (Dufour et al., 2008; O’Neill, 2000; White & MacIntosh, 2007). The term SMART goals refer to goals that are strategic, measurable, attainable, results-orientated, and time-bound. O’Neill (2000) cites a large body of research
7
that supports the use of these specific goals in schools. Dufour et al. (2008) show that schools sometimes wrongly set procedural goals that could be successful attained without improving student achievement. For example, a school could set a goal to train teachers in a new method which it accomplishes, but in the end does not positively effect on student achievement. Goals also need to be concise (Fullan, 2010). Dufour et al. (2008) use Reeves’ (2006) finding of a negative correlation between numbers of pages in district plans and student achievement to discuss the need to focus on a limited number of overriding priorities and goals (p.161-162). Data Driven Action Research Roselle’s research (2011) shows that data should not only be collected for analyzing students’ success, but also to measure the effectiveness of teachers’ own practice. She explains that the data can show teacher’s area of weakness which typically leads to a desire for improvement. Good discussion within a PLC can help to uncover the basic causes of the problems which may challenge teachers’ underlying beliefs and attitudes about student learning (Roselle, 2011, p. 26). Participatory action research is a method of systematic inquiry into practice in which educators plan, act, observe, and reflect (Grundy, 1982 as cited in Goodnough, 2008). Let us consider the data for School X found in Appendix A to consider how a PLC could use action research and goal setting. The given data shows a remarkable dropout rate compared to the national and provincial averages. The school team could set SMART goal that is then addressed more specifically in the PLC’s depending on grade levels or subjects. A SMART goal could be to increase the graduation rates by 10% during this school year and to keep at least 20% of returning students through to graduation. Educators should use research evidence to drive
8
their choice of strategies like Kirby and Gardner’s (2010) suggestions for the “Schooling they Need” which include flexible scheduling and counselling support. The staff would plan their intervention based on the data, act on it, observe the results, and reflect on further implementation strategies at the end of the year. Empowered teachers Roselle (2011) uses Sagor’s (2009) work to show that: By treating teachers like professionals, they feel respected and will, in turn, take ownership of the challenges in the classroom and seek to find feasible solutions. When teachers better understand their role, they are more ready and willing to face the challenges posed by modern schools. (p. 24-25) PLC’s do more than improve learning for students: they can create an environment where teachers meet their own needs for autonomy, achievement, and self-actualization. Hoy and Miskel (2012) point out that many people resist external pressures such as rules, regulations, order and deadlines, because they have a need for autonomy (p.147). The need for autonomy can be enhanced by allowing individuals to make their own choices, plan their own course of action, and accept responsibility for their own choices (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p.148) which are all intrinsically built in to PLC’s. Moreover, after the teachers have the skills for working in a PLC they should be allowed to work without micromanaging (Roselle, 2011, p. 31). Those with high achievement needs should also do well in a PLC because they are responsible for performing a task, problem solving, goal setting, and getting performance feedback from PLC peers (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 146). By presenting teachers with data instead of direction administrators can allow professionals to be autonomously empowered to choose their own path of improvement.
9
Tools for self-measurement can be discussed as a team and decisions can be made about how to address the issues that arise. For instance, Dr. Reeves (2010) provides a reproducible chart that ask teachers to do a “treasure hunt” to find the students with A’s, D’s, and F’s in their own classes and then classify them according to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and native language (p. 127). After reflecting on these results of the teachers can see for themselves whether their marks are actually fair or whether there are some underlying problems that need to be addressed. Group assessment marking also helps to share ideas and give reality checks to individual’s grading (Reeves, 2013c). Another advantage of increasing professional autonomy is that Marjoribanks’ (1977) and DiPaola and Hoy’s (1994) research shows that bureaucratic conflict will then decrease (as cited in Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 130). PLC’s are also an example of equifinality. Hoy and Miskel (2012) discuss equifinality in terms using projects and discovery learning to improve critical thinking skills with no one best way to learn (p. 23). Likewise, for teachers there are many paths that can be taken to make learning for all happen, but given the structure and flexibility of a PLC they can choose from many different models or new ideas to reach that objective. To achieve this flexible professional environment principals need to learn to be a facilitator who shares power instead of “the boss” (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 240). When Roselle (2011) made a decision to take a less active role in with her PLC participants she was pleasantly surprised at the level of critical discussion that occurred (p. 31): leaders need to learn to step back and trust their staff. Hord and Sommers (2008) call shared power, authority and decision making one of the defining characteristics of a PLC (as cited by Hafizur Rahman, 2008, p. 5).
10
Leadership skills Strong Leadership Despite the obvious focus of PLC’s on the role of the teacher driving their own learning, PLC still need an instructional leader. Feedback from Roselle’s (2011) participants showed that despite their positive feelings about PLC’s they did not believe that it would c ontinue at their school after the support of the research study was removed because of the lack of supportive leadership (p. 152-153). Moreover, Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2008) show that school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning (p. 27). They claim that there is “not a single documented case of a school successfully turning around its pupil achievement trajectory in the absence of talented leadership” (p. 29). Building trust Building a new culture in a school especially one that requires staff members to be experimental and take risk to improve their teaching requires a lot of relational trust (Bryk and Schneider, 2003; Dufour et al., 2008; Smith, 2012; Roselle, 2011). Trust grows through simple interaction which “if successful, can enhance collective capacities for more complex subsequent actions” and also through principal’s modeling expectations by being consistent in words and actions to affirm their personal integrity (Bryk & Schneider, 2003, p. 43). Mitchelle and Shakeney (2001) explain that this affective trust component is also important for the heart and passion of teachers’ work. Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) longitudinal study of the Chicago Public Schools on school effectiveness found that schools reporting strong trust levels were three times more likely to improve academic achievements than those with weak reports of trust. Moreover, they found that trust indirectly drove the success because s it fosters a “positive ‘can
11
do’ attitude of teachers, outreach to school community, professional community, and commitment to school community” (as cited in Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 315-316). Open dialogue is at the heart of a PLC. In order to improve the teaching practice in the school teachers need to be willing to professionally criticize others and accept criticism about their own teaching. Roselle (2011) found that in her group that there were a few vocal personalities that essentially silenced the others. Teachers were reluctant to speak-up and were very uncomfortable about giving negative feedback to other teachers during their walkthroughs. As the leader of the PLC, Roselle worked to build a family type atmosphere where relationships could withstand a temporary disagreement. She argues that it is the essential role of the principal to build that trust that will allow conflict in a supportive atmosphere. During Hafizur Rahaman’s (2011) study teachers were also very shy and hesitant in the first few meetings, but as the trust built they felt relaxed and began to shared mistakes and failures openly with their colleagues. Hoy and Miskel (2012) cite their own research and others to show that trust in schools is important because it facilitates cooperation, enhances openness, promotes group cohesiveness, supports professionalism, builds capacity, and improves student achievement (p. 193). One way in which trust could be modeled by the principal is by using exit slips at staff meetings with rubrics for evaluating the work of the principal. Dr. Reeves (2013b) recommends that teachers’ model accepting feedback with such exit slips. In administration, one could extend this idea to model to teachers that the administrator is willing to accept criticism as well as trusting and valuing input from the teachers.
12
Difficult Teachers Despite all the administrators’ efforts to carefully implement PLC’s it is likely that some staff will not support the initiative. Marzano (2013) addresses it this way: It seems to me in most schools or even districts all it takes to stop a good initiative dead in its tracks is a handful, and I mean like five unhappy, but vocal people. And it stops it dead in its tracks…. Do you know what that says to me? That is just human nature and all you got to do is live through it. I am not talking about demonizing those people. They are good people. Listen to them. But just get over it. An all systems go approach with a mission of learning for all requires the collaboration of the entire staff even the reluctant. A few vocal dissenters can affect the group dynamic and hinder teacher engagement. This why trust must be built and difficult teachers need to be dealt with. Roselle (2011) cautions that confrontational and negative people can cause friction among participants causing even the positive to become disengage by just going along with ideas they did not agree with rather than have an argument. She suggests that the choice of people on teams for PLCs should be carefully considered to avoid negative conflict (p. 156-157) as teachers need to be comfortable and trusting in order to give and accept criticism necessary for change. Lencioni (2002) discusses other counterproductive behaviours in teams including lack of trust, fear of conflict, and inability to conflict productively “in a manner that resolves issues and leaves the lines of communication open” (as cited in Roselle, 2011, p. 29). Likewise, Leithwood, Steinbach and Ryan (1997) point out that collegial conflict should not be avoided. There is an equal danger of having a groupthink mentality where groups can collectively rationalize even bad decisions. He argues that it is important to have a leader who will contradict or point out
13
fallacies in thinking. However, truly negative, especially vocal, dissenters will ruin the trust and make the teams ineffective. Dealing with oppositional teachers is a very difficult and political situation. One strategy for dealing with teachers who will not accept the change is to have structured conversations using Scott’s (2004, 2011) training in “Fierce Conversations.” Part of the strategy is to ensure that all teachers feel valued and respected. Involving them in real team conversations and respecting their opinions with the exit slip strategy can help to make true team decisions for a school that staff buys into. Another way to help opposing teachers is though coaching conversations. However, if those methods do not work than a private confrontational conversation is necessary to move through the steps until there is a resolution which includes an agreement to which each is held accountable (Scott, 2011, p. Confront – 9-11). Throughout those conversations it is important to follow Scott’s advice and be truly present in the conversation, be respectful, tackle tough challenges, obey your instincts, and speak honestly. Whitaker (2002) challenges administrators to make decisions based on the positive productive staff and not the dissenters (p. 19-21). Hopefully, as Kim and Mauborgne (2003) believe, “once the beliefs and energies of a critical mass of people are engaged, conversion to a new idea will spread like an epidemic” (p. 62), but this is not always perfectly uniform. Whitaker (2002) does not suggest that you simply ignore the difficult teachers; instead, administrators should make them uncomfortable by empowering the “good guys,” using effective approaches in meetings, and reducing negativity. The real challenge is to have them accept responsibility for their actions and coach to help with any deficits (Whitaker, 2002, p. 5557). Teachers who refuse to change can be offered a transfer or most districts would have a
14
process for holding teachers accountable which could lead to dismissal (Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Heckbert, personal communication, February 22, 2012). Facilitating change Part of making change more palatable for the staff is phasing it in over time. White and Macintosh (2007) show how one school district added different phases every year. The first year they learned about PLC’s and began implementing common assessments. The second year they started having a late start to the school day to allow for quarterly meetings. Next they focused on using data for comparing schools and developing more common assessments and strategies. Then they shifted the focus from the administrators handing out data to the teachers seeking data themselves. In the future they are looking to expand their pyramids of intervention and looking at collaborative lesson studies. Huber (2010) illustrates several scenarios whereby good intentions for PLC’s get sidetracked by new district initiatives, the daily responsibly of school life, and lack of time to share good ideas. There are assumptions that can lead to the failure of PLC’s: the assumption that passion information on is enough; that insight must come from the outside; and that planning means learning. The result is that the professional learning is “neither sustained, targeted, ongoing, nor job embedded” (Huber, 2010, p. 42). There needs to be a rigid plan with an emphasis on professional learning that leaves no room to be pushed aside for emerging issues (Huber, 2010, p. 42). Scheduling Asking teachers add PLC’s to their busy schedules no matter how valuable could cause problems if it is perceived as extra work. Some schools even ran into problems of teachers
15
putting in a grievance over the extra meeting hours (White & MacIntosh, 2007). Mohammad (2004) has discussed an idea that can be used in relation to PLC’s which is “addition by subtraction.” If administrators expect teachers to add PLC’s meetings to their schedule then something needs to be removed. Some suggestions are to shorten the school day by early dismissal, late start times, or managing supervision of study blocks to give teachers time to collaborate. At minimum the meetings could be scheduled during a common prep period rather than expecting meetings to occur after school. Different PLC’s groupings can be considered depending on the school. For example, larger schools may be able to have teams of same-subject, same-grade teachers while smaller schools may have grade level cross-curricular teams that focus less on specific teaching and assessment and more on global policies and practices (Roselle, 2011, p.132). For these teachers without content-area peers they may benefit from inter-schools collaboration. Online collaborative groups can be used to wipe away great physical distances (McNabb, Valdez, Nowakowski & Hawke, 1999). For example, blogs have been used in the Miramichi to do a professional book study with Language Arts teachers that live hundreds of kilometres apart in a large school district (Gallivan, personal communication, February 27, 2013). Technological solution Technology can offer some ways of facilitating sharing of information and collaboration for the PLC’s. These tools can be used in conjunction with face-to-face conversations to post thoughts, questions and reflections to sustain conversation about teaching. Huber (2010) noted that professional forums have been used to save times at staff meetings by posting memos, upcoming events, sharing lessons or presentations, and even pedagogical training
16
videos (p.43-44). As long as accountability is built into following through with content provided on the site then teachers can access information when it is convenient for them instead of after school during a meeting when people are tired and ready to go home (McNabb et al., 1999). Documents can also be built collectively online like items for an agenda or a common assessment. Moreover, the internet also provides a virtually limitless number of opportunities to pursue professional learning through tools like professional journals and blogs, online courses, and webinars. Software can also be used to facilitate data collection and the efficiency of teaching tasks. Anglophone North District is moving to a new system called PowerSchool which enables teachers to input marks and assignments that parents and students can access from home (Johnson, personal communication, February 26, 2013). This tool is also meant to give data quickly and easily about marks, attendance, and behavioural tracking. Plus, once implemented this will ease data collection to inform goal setting. It will also help with other important goals like communication with parents, saving paper, and, once implemented, it could save time compare to printing and writing out interim reports. Conclusion The complexity of implementing professional learning communities should not be underestimated; however, what they can offer a school is worth the effort. If properly implemented PLC’s can create a momentum where reflective learning increases incrementally. Kim and Mauborgne (2003) have done research on transformational leadership in many different fields and they use the image of a tipping point to discuss momentum that can bring about fundamental change very quickly:
17
The theory suggests that such a movement can be unleashed only by agents who make unforgettable and unarguable calls for change, who concentrate their resources on what really matters, who mobilize the commitment of the organization's key players, and who succeed in silencing the most vocal naysayers. (p.62)
Of course it is important to meet current learning targets; however, building this collaborative culture will help to ensure that future educational goals will be met as well (Reeves, 2010, p. 70). Well implemented PLC’s can provide a safe and positive learning community where all students and teachers learn and reach their potential.
18
References Bandura, A. (1993). Percieved self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117-148. Beers, T. (2012, June). Upriver Country News. Harcourt, NB: Upriver Community Renewal Community. Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in school: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60 (6), 40. Dufour, R. (2013a) Solution Tree: Rebecca DuFour, three big ideas of a PLC. Retrieved from http://www.solution-tree.com/#prettyPhoto/1/ Dufour, R. (2013b) Solution Tree: Richard DuFour on the importance of the PLC’s. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnWDJFxfAKE Dufour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008) Revisting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IA: Solution Tree. Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R. & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IA: Solution Tree. Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin and Ontario Principals’ Council. Goodnough, K. (2008 ). Dealing with messiness and uncertainty in practitioner research: The nature of participatory action research. Canadian Journal of Education, 31, 2, 431‐458. Hafizur Rahman, S. M. (2011). Influence of professional learning community on secondary science teachers’ culture of professional practice: The case of Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12 (1), p. 1-22. Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2012). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice [Kindle version]. Available from http://www.amazon.ca/Educational-Administration-ResearchPractice-ebook/dp/B008K9XTYM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358961989&sr=8-1 Huber, C. (2010). Professional learning 2.0. Educational Leadership, 67 (8), 41-46. Kappler Hewitt, K. (2011). Among colleagues: Offer a choice of PLC’s. Educational Leadership, 68 (6), 96. Kirby, D. & Gardner, M. (2011). The schooling they need: Voicing student perspectives on their fourth year in senior high school. Canadian Journal of Education, 33 (1), 108-139.
19
Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81 (4), 61-69. Lauer, D. & Matthews, M. (2007). Teachers steer their own learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28 (2), 36-41. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Ryan. S. (1997) Leadership and team learning in secondary schools. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 17 (3), 303326. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 28 (1), 2742. Marzano, R. J. (2013). Solution Tree: Robert J. Marzano on developing expert teachers. Retrieved from http://www.solution-tree.com/#prettyPhoto McNabb, M. L., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J. & Hawkes, M. (1999). Technology connections for school improvement. Retrieved from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F511%2Fhandbook.pdf McMullen, K. & Gilmore, J. (2010). A note on high school graduation and school attendance, by age and province, 2009/2010. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81004-x/2010004/article/11360-eng.htm Mitchell, C., & SacKney, L. (2001). Building capacity for a learning community. Canadian Journal of Educational Adminstration and Policy, 19. Mitra, S. (2013). Sugata Mitra: Building a school in the cloud [video]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud.html Mohammad, A. (2004, August). Transforming school culture: Understanding and overcoming resistance to necessary change. District 16 Professional Development. Lecture conducted from James M. Hill High School, Miramichi, NB. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s children, summary report. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/no-dream-denied_summary_report.pdf New Brunswick Department of Education (2010). NB3-21C: Creating a 21st century learning model of public education: Three-year plan 2010-2013. Retrieved from http://web1.nbed.nb.ca/sites/ASD-W/wms/Parent%20Docs/DoE%20-%20PIP%20(NB321C)%202010-201.pdf
20
O'Neill, J. (2000). SMART goals, SMART schools. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 46 Reeves, D. (2010) Elements of grading: A guide to effective practice [online version]. Retrieved from http://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/ode/EOG/ Reeves, D. (2013a). Changing practice. Retrieved from http://eclassroom.kdsi.org/eClassroom/eClassroom.aspx?reg=248265&cp=103348&loa d=1 Reeves, D. (2013b). Specificty. Retrieved from http://eclassroom.kdsi.org/eClassroom/eClassroom.aspx Reeves, D. (2013c). Reality checks. Retrieved from http://eclassroom.kdsi.org/eClassroom/eClassroom.aspx Roselle, K. F. (2011). Professionalizing practice: How PLC development enhances teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://dspace.rowan.edu/handle/10927/170 Schleicher, A. (2012). Andreas Schleicher: Use data to build better schools. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/andreas_schleicher_use_data_to_build_better_schools.html Scott, S. (2011). Fierce Conversations. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group. Scott, S. (2004). Fierce Conversations: Achieving success at work and in life one conversation at a time. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group. Smith, H. R. (2012) Trust: Principals and collaborative teams. Journal of Education Policy, Planning & Administration, 1(2), 21-44. Retrieved from: http://www.jeppa.org. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23-28, Whitaker, T. (2002). Dealing with difficult teachers. Raleigh, NC: Eye on Education. White, S. H., & MacIntosh, J. (2007). Data delivers a wake-up call. Journal of Staff Development, 28 (2). 32-35.
21
Appendix A Table 1: School X’s Graduation Statistics The following data is from Winshcool for School X in New Brunswick (administration assistant School X, personal communication, February 28, 2013). The data for the purpose of this paper only includes grade 9 enrolment rates and the graduation rates. For more accurate data one would require more detail about transfers in and out throughout the four high school years. However, this school does not have large transfer rates, and for the purpose of the exercise in this paper it is deemed sufficient.
Grade 9 Year Grade 9 enrolment Number who graduated in 4 years Number who graduated in 5 years Number who graduated in 6 or more Number of grade 9’s who enrolled compared to graduated
2004-2005 114 55 5 1 61/114= 53.5%
2005-2006 134 69 6 1 76/134= 57%
2006-2007 122 74 3 1 78/122= 64%
2007-2008 127 76 4 1 81/127 = 64%
2008-2009 92 45 9 possible grads2013
45/92= 49% (57% possible)
Table 2: Stats Canada Data for 2009-2010 (McMullen & Gilmore, 2010). 18 to 19 years old Canada High school graduate Not a high school graduate, attending school Not a high school graduate, not attending school New Brunswick High school graduate Not a high school graduate, attending school Not a high school graduate, not attending school 13.0 81.9 5.0 77.0 14.9 8.1 20-24 year olds 89.5 2.0 8.5 90.2 1.6 8.2
by Katherine Halas Moulton
A Report submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for 6204 Memorial University of Newfoundland March 17, 2013 St. John’s Newfoundland
Table of Contents
Professional Learning Communities Need for Teacher-driven Change Providing Proof of Effectiveness All Systems Go Team Focus School-based Teams Goal Orientated, Data Driven, Empowered Teachers SMART Goals Data Driven Action Research Empowered Teachers Leadership Strong Principal Building Trust Difficult teachers Facilitating change Scheduling Change Technological Solutions Conclusion References Appendix A
1 1 3 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 10 10 10 12 14 14 15 16 18 21
ii
1
Our mission is to provide a safe and positive learning community where all students learn and reach their potential. - School X’s Mission Statement Most levels of educational bodies’ expressed purpose is to meet the needs of all learners (National Commission, 2003; NB Department of Education, 2010). It is their raison d’ être. Moreover, educators’ purpose is not merely to give the students the opportunity to learn rather to ensure that they learn (Dufour, 2013b). The overwhelming challenge and complexity of this task can be met through empowering teachers in professional learning communities (PLC’s) to continuously improve their practice. Professional Learning Communities Need for Teacher-driven Change Many factors work against successful learning for all. To begin with schools are challenged by trying to evolve in an archaic school system. Today’s schools were designed 300 years ago as a hierarchy system meant to produce workers for all levels of the work force (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker & Karhanek, 2004, p.2; Mitra, 2013). Another challenge is mythology that heroic teachers can work in isolation to meet the needs of their students (Dufour, 2013b) or that transformational change can come from the outside (Fullan, 2001, as cited in Dufour et al., 2004, p. xv). The answer to solving educational issues is not only an amazing educator in the classroom, it is a collaborative team approach that involves every educator in the building working as a system (Fullan, 2010). Transformational change can come from a collegial collaboration of professionals. Michell and Sackney (2001) define the PLC groups as those who take “an active, reflective, collaborative, learning-oriented and growth-promoting approach toward both the mysteries
2
and the problems of teaching and learning” (p. 2). The National Commission on Teaching (2003) calls for an “end to solo teaching in isolated classrooms…. Collegial interchange, not isolation, must become the norm for teachers.” The power of PLC’s is in the availability of the expertise of colleagues in similar situations to set goals for improvement, to share and test ideas, and to adjust teaching based on the results. The culture of the school needs to evolve to reflect new norms of making sound decisions about teaching though action research, and by using the preponderance of evidence (Reeves, 2013). Dufour (2013a), states that: The first step is to embrace learning as the fundamental purpose through which we evaluate every aspect of our practice; we embrace the idea that we need to build a collective culture and collectively take responsibility for the success of all students; and finally we become results driven-evidence-based practitioners. However, changing the way a school operates is complicated. If people buy-in to the need for change and feel ownership for change they will be more willing to make the changes necessary. Spillane, Halverson and Diamond (2001) narrow down a body of school improvement literature research to identify several functions that are essential for instructional leadership including building the vision, building trust, collaboration, and teacher development. Mitra’s (2013) model of self-organized learning environments that can be applied to adult learning in a PLC which has a core of technology, collaboration, and encouragement. Of course putting together a group of teachers and asking them to collaborate is no guarantee of success. Individuals within the groups need a nurturing environment where they are comfortable asking for help and admitting when they don’t know something, as well as time to construct meaning, and to do self-reflection (Dufour, Dufour & Eaker, 2008; Kappler Heweitt, 2011; Lauer & Matthews, 2007; Roselle, 2011). Similarly, Kappler Heweitt (2011) offers another
3
non-negotiable rule for PLC’s: they must help teachers put what they learn into action which means that the ideas that come out of the PLC’s cannot remain theoretical. Providing Proof of Effectiveness As administrators implementing a change that will require staff to attend extra meetings, do more work, and be un-comfortable in moving towards personal growth they should be prepared to justify the initiative. Some staff members may believe that the compelling dream that all students will learn cannot be accomplished for a myriad of reasons. Before change can begin teachers need to believe that the task is achievable. Bandura’s research on self-efficacy (1993) shows that individuals need to believe that they can change their environment: if they believe that they do not have the power to change their environment or if they are plagued with self-doubt about their own efficacy they may not be even willing to put a real effort into these learning communities. One of the ways to build teachers’ perception of self -efficacy is by vicarious experiences (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 164-165). Furthermore, by taking the time to go through the scientific evidence that backs up the use of PLC’s the administrators can model they are using of preponderance of evidence to guide change initiatives. One could use the examples of other countries from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data to discuss change. The head of PISA, Schleicher (2012) uses data to show that it is possible to improve learning for even nations as a whole. He claims that PISA data comparisons show that low performing systems leave teachers alone in their classrooms; whereas, high performing systems provide an environment for teachers to work together to frame good practices, to form
4
intelligent pathways, to grow in their careers, and develop them with the skills they need to be innovative and creative. These are of course the functions of PLC’s. A powerful example of success, cited by both Dufour (2013b) and Fullan (2010), is the Sanger Unified School District which is showing academic improvements in every one of its schools despite 80% poverty and minorities. Since their implementation of PLC’s they have become the highest achieving district in California in terms of progress. Their scores have improved by 39%. They created a district mantra that has two essential pieces: stop blaming the kids; and educators must focus on creating the conditions necessary for students to learn at higher levels. Teachers were expected “to collaborate, to develop a guaranteed curriculum, to monitor student learning through common assessments, to have plans for interventions when students were struggling, and to have all of the educators throughout the system help one and other learn in order to be more effective” (Dufour, 2013b). Hafizur Rahman’s (2011) study in Bangladesh shows that even in a context where there is no culture of professional collaboration that with time PLC’s can be effective. Despite being volunteers initially the teachers in his study were uncomfortable with having honest collegial dialogue. After few sessions together there was passionate debate about matters focused on their classrooms. Soon teachers would come to sessions with their own identified issues to be discussed and they became very results orientated. Participants stated they felt that the process had positively enhanced their teaching practices and they were committed to continuing the practice.
5
All Systems Go Team Focus Michael Fullan (2010) used the term “all systems go” in his b ook by the same name as a motto to discuss the need for all parts of the educational system to work together towards common objectives. Schleicher (2012), in his analysis of the PISA data, shows that consistency across the system can lead to high national achievement. He holds up Finland, which is a consistently high performing country, as exemplary as it has only a 5% variation in scores between schools across the nation. This Finnish example embodies the power of a national policy of learning for all. Some regions are seeking this consistency by having all their administrators do the Dufour’s PLC training with the including the Findlay City Schools (MacIntosh & White, 2007), and the province of New Brunswick. School-based Teams Even though Fullan was discussing all systems go in terms of large educational systems the concept can also be applied to consistency within the school. All members of the staff should be striving towards the same vision including the educational assistants, conflict intervention workers, and even the cafeteria staff. If, for example, the cafeteria workers inadvertently reward the students who sneak out of class early by feeding them they are undermining the system. However, if the cafeteria could partner with the teachers and the community to do food literacy projects and have students working in the kitchen or even growing their own healthful food like a school in New Brunswick (Beers, 2012) they would be part of this collaborative culture. Individual schools should consider whether it would be
6
beneficial to include the support staff in the PLC’s or at least use appropriate moments to call on their expertise and support in initiatives. Even though it is a challenge to get the whole staff working collaboratively it is important to realize that having the whole school working together is more than the ideal: it is necessary for success. Reeves (2010)’s work shows that low level implementation of reform strategies is actually less effective then no implementation of strategies; however, when there is virtually full and deep implementation throughout the system then, even with demographics of over 90% poverty and minority, 90% success rates on state testing is achievable (as cited in Fullan, 2010, p. 55). There is a belief that persists that educational problems can be solved by hiring individual heroic teachers who make a difference for their students while ignoring what is going on in the class next door (Dufour, 2013b). Reeves (2010) also discusses to mystical professionals who get everything right the first time; instead, he argues, expertise is “based upon the willingness to try techniques, get feedback that is honest, accurate, specific, and timely, and then improve performance. Good learning communities can provide that growth and feedback for teachers. Goal Orientated, Data Driven, Empowered Teachers SMART Goals Many schools, business, and government organizations are using SMART goals for PLC’s and other forms of transformative improvement planning (Dufour et al., 2008; O’Neill, 2000; White & MacIntosh, 2007). The term SMART goals refer to goals that are strategic, measurable, attainable, results-orientated, and time-bound. O’Neill (2000) cites a large body of research
7
that supports the use of these specific goals in schools. Dufour et al. (2008) show that schools sometimes wrongly set procedural goals that could be successful attained without improving student achievement. For example, a school could set a goal to train teachers in a new method which it accomplishes, but in the end does not positively effect on student achievement. Goals also need to be concise (Fullan, 2010). Dufour et al. (2008) use Reeves’ (2006) finding of a negative correlation between numbers of pages in district plans and student achievement to discuss the need to focus on a limited number of overriding priorities and goals (p.161-162). Data Driven Action Research Roselle’s research (2011) shows that data should not only be collected for analyzing students’ success, but also to measure the effectiveness of teachers’ own practice. She explains that the data can show teacher’s area of weakness which typically leads to a desire for improvement. Good discussion within a PLC can help to uncover the basic causes of the problems which may challenge teachers’ underlying beliefs and attitudes about student learning (Roselle, 2011, p. 26). Participatory action research is a method of systematic inquiry into practice in which educators plan, act, observe, and reflect (Grundy, 1982 as cited in Goodnough, 2008). Let us consider the data for School X found in Appendix A to consider how a PLC could use action research and goal setting. The given data shows a remarkable dropout rate compared to the national and provincial averages. The school team could set SMART goal that is then addressed more specifically in the PLC’s depending on grade levels or subjects. A SMART goal could be to increase the graduation rates by 10% during this school year and to keep at least 20% of returning students through to graduation. Educators should use research evidence to drive
8
their choice of strategies like Kirby and Gardner’s (2010) suggestions for the “Schooling they Need” which include flexible scheduling and counselling support. The staff would plan their intervention based on the data, act on it, observe the results, and reflect on further implementation strategies at the end of the year. Empowered teachers Roselle (2011) uses Sagor’s (2009) work to show that: By treating teachers like professionals, they feel respected and will, in turn, take ownership of the challenges in the classroom and seek to find feasible solutions. When teachers better understand their role, they are more ready and willing to face the challenges posed by modern schools. (p. 24-25) PLC’s do more than improve learning for students: they can create an environment where teachers meet their own needs for autonomy, achievement, and self-actualization. Hoy and Miskel (2012) point out that many people resist external pressures such as rules, regulations, order and deadlines, because they have a need for autonomy (p.147). The need for autonomy can be enhanced by allowing individuals to make their own choices, plan their own course of action, and accept responsibility for their own choices (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p.148) which are all intrinsically built in to PLC’s. Moreover, after the teachers have the skills for working in a PLC they should be allowed to work without micromanaging (Roselle, 2011, p. 31). Those with high achievement needs should also do well in a PLC because they are responsible for performing a task, problem solving, goal setting, and getting performance feedback from PLC peers (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 146). By presenting teachers with data instead of direction administrators can allow professionals to be autonomously empowered to choose their own path of improvement.
9
Tools for self-measurement can be discussed as a team and decisions can be made about how to address the issues that arise. For instance, Dr. Reeves (2010) provides a reproducible chart that ask teachers to do a “treasure hunt” to find the students with A’s, D’s, and F’s in their own classes and then classify them according to gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and native language (p. 127). After reflecting on these results of the teachers can see for themselves whether their marks are actually fair or whether there are some underlying problems that need to be addressed. Group assessment marking also helps to share ideas and give reality checks to individual’s grading (Reeves, 2013c). Another advantage of increasing professional autonomy is that Marjoribanks’ (1977) and DiPaola and Hoy’s (1994) research shows that bureaucratic conflict will then decrease (as cited in Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 130). PLC’s are also an example of equifinality. Hoy and Miskel (2012) discuss equifinality in terms using projects and discovery learning to improve critical thinking skills with no one best way to learn (p. 23). Likewise, for teachers there are many paths that can be taken to make learning for all happen, but given the structure and flexibility of a PLC they can choose from many different models or new ideas to reach that objective. To achieve this flexible professional environment principals need to learn to be a facilitator who shares power instead of “the boss” (Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 240). When Roselle (2011) made a decision to take a less active role in with her PLC participants she was pleasantly surprised at the level of critical discussion that occurred (p. 31): leaders need to learn to step back and trust their staff. Hord and Sommers (2008) call shared power, authority and decision making one of the defining characteristics of a PLC (as cited by Hafizur Rahman, 2008, p. 5).
10
Leadership skills Strong Leadership Despite the obvious focus of PLC’s on the role of the teacher driving their own learning, PLC still need an instructional leader. Feedback from Roselle’s (2011) participants showed that despite their positive feelings about PLC’s they did not believe that it would c ontinue at their school after the support of the research study was removed because of the lack of supportive leadership (p. 152-153). Moreover, Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2008) show that school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning (p. 27). They claim that there is “not a single documented case of a school successfully turning around its pupil achievement trajectory in the absence of talented leadership” (p. 29). Building trust Building a new culture in a school especially one that requires staff members to be experimental and take risk to improve their teaching requires a lot of relational trust (Bryk and Schneider, 2003; Dufour et al., 2008; Smith, 2012; Roselle, 2011). Trust grows through simple interaction which “if successful, can enhance collective capacities for more complex subsequent actions” and also through principal’s modeling expectations by being consistent in words and actions to affirm their personal integrity (Bryk & Schneider, 2003, p. 43). Mitchelle and Shakeney (2001) explain that this affective trust component is also important for the heart and passion of teachers’ work. Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) longitudinal study of the Chicago Public Schools on school effectiveness found that schools reporting strong trust levels were three times more likely to improve academic achievements than those with weak reports of trust. Moreover, they found that trust indirectly drove the success because s it fosters a “positive ‘can
11
do’ attitude of teachers, outreach to school community, professional community, and commitment to school community” (as cited in Hoy & Miskel, 2012, p. 315-316). Open dialogue is at the heart of a PLC. In order to improve the teaching practice in the school teachers need to be willing to professionally criticize others and accept criticism about their own teaching. Roselle (2011) found that in her group that there were a few vocal personalities that essentially silenced the others. Teachers were reluctant to speak-up and were very uncomfortable about giving negative feedback to other teachers during their walkthroughs. As the leader of the PLC, Roselle worked to build a family type atmosphere where relationships could withstand a temporary disagreement. She argues that it is the essential role of the principal to build that trust that will allow conflict in a supportive atmosphere. During Hafizur Rahaman’s (2011) study teachers were also very shy and hesitant in the first few meetings, but as the trust built they felt relaxed and began to shared mistakes and failures openly with their colleagues. Hoy and Miskel (2012) cite their own research and others to show that trust in schools is important because it facilitates cooperation, enhances openness, promotes group cohesiveness, supports professionalism, builds capacity, and improves student achievement (p. 193). One way in which trust could be modeled by the principal is by using exit slips at staff meetings with rubrics for evaluating the work of the principal. Dr. Reeves (2013b) recommends that teachers’ model accepting feedback with such exit slips. In administration, one could extend this idea to model to teachers that the administrator is willing to accept criticism as well as trusting and valuing input from the teachers.
12
Difficult Teachers Despite all the administrators’ efforts to carefully implement PLC’s it is likely that some staff will not support the initiative. Marzano (2013) addresses it this way: It seems to me in most schools or even districts all it takes to stop a good initiative dead in its tracks is a handful, and I mean like five unhappy, but vocal people. And it stops it dead in its tracks…. Do you know what that says to me? That is just human nature and all you got to do is live through it. I am not talking about demonizing those people. They are good people. Listen to them. But just get over it. An all systems go approach with a mission of learning for all requires the collaboration of the entire staff even the reluctant. A few vocal dissenters can affect the group dynamic and hinder teacher engagement. This why trust must be built and difficult teachers need to be dealt with. Roselle (2011) cautions that confrontational and negative people can cause friction among participants causing even the positive to become disengage by just going along with ideas they did not agree with rather than have an argument. She suggests that the choice of people on teams for PLCs should be carefully considered to avoid negative conflict (p. 156-157) as teachers need to be comfortable and trusting in order to give and accept criticism necessary for change. Lencioni (2002) discusses other counterproductive behaviours in teams including lack of trust, fear of conflict, and inability to conflict productively “in a manner that resolves issues and leaves the lines of communication open” (as cited in Roselle, 2011, p. 29). Likewise, Leithwood, Steinbach and Ryan (1997) point out that collegial conflict should not be avoided. There is an equal danger of having a groupthink mentality where groups can collectively rationalize even bad decisions. He argues that it is important to have a leader who will contradict or point out
13
fallacies in thinking. However, truly negative, especially vocal, dissenters will ruin the trust and make the teams ineffective. Dealing with oppositional teachers is a very difficult and political situation. One strategy for dealing with teachers who will not accept the change is to have structured conversations using Scott’s (2004, 2011) training in “Fierce Conversations.” Part of the strategy is to ensure that all teachers feel valued and respected. Involving them in real team conversations and respecting their opinions with the exit slip strategy can help to make true team decisions for a school that staff buys into. Another way to help opposing teachers is though coaching conversations. However, if those methods do not work than a private confrontational conversation is necessary to move through the steps until there is a resolution which includes an agreement to which each is held accountable (Scott, 2011, p. Confront – 9-11). Throughout those conversations it is important to follow Scott’s advice and be truly present in the conversation, be respectful, tackle tough challenges, obey your instincts, and speak honestly. Whitaker (2002) challenges administrators to make decisions based on the positive productive staff and not the dissenters (p. 19-21). Hopefully, as Kim and Mauborgne (2003) believe, “once the beliefs and energies of a critical mass of people are engaged, conversion to a new idea will spread like an epidemic” (p. 62), but this is not always perfectly uniform. Whitaker (2002) does not suggest that you simply ignore the difficult teachers; instead, administrators should make them uncomfortable by empowering the “good guys,” using effective approaches in meetings, and reducing negativity. The real challenge is to have them accept responsibility for their actions and coach to help with any deficits (Whitaker, 2002, p. 5557). Teachers who refuse to change can be offered a transfer or most districts would have a
14
process for holding teachers accountable which could lead to dismissal (Bryk & Schneider, 2003; Heckbert, personal communication, February 22, 2012). Facilitating change Part of making change more palatable for the staff is phasing it in over time. White and Macintosh (2007) show how one school district added different phases every year. The first year they learned about PLC’s and began implementing common assessments. The second year they started having a late start to the school day to allow for quarterly meetings. Next they focused on using data for comparing schools and developing more common assessments and strategies. Then they shifted the focus from the administrators handing out data to the teachers seeking data themselves. In the future they are looking to expand their pyramids of intervention and looking at collaborative lesson studies. Huber (2010) illustrates several scenarios whereby good intentions for PLC’s get sidetracked by new district initiatives, the daily responsibly of school life, and lack of time to share good ideas. There are assumptions that can lead to the failure of PLC’s: the assumption that passion information on is enough; that insight must come from the outside; and that planning means learning. The result is that the professional learning is “neither sustained, targeted, ongoing, nor job embedded” (Huber, 2010, p. 42). There needs to be a rigid plan with an emphasis on professional learning that leaves no room to be pushed aside for emerging issues (Huber, 2010, p. 42). Scheduling Asking teachers add PLC’s to their busy schedules no matter how valuable could cause problems if it is perceived as extra work. Some schools even ran into problems of teachers
15
putting in a grievance over the extra meeting hours (White & MacIntosh, 2007). Mohammad (2004) has discussed an idea that can be used in relation to PLC’s which is “addition by subtraction.” If administrators expect teachers to add PLC’s meetings to their schedule then something needs to be removed. Some suggestions are to shorten the school day by early dismissal, late start times, or managing supervision of study blocks to give teachers time to collaborate. At minimum the meetings could be scheduled during a common prep period rather than expecting meetings to occur after school. Different PLC’s groupings can be considered depending on the school. For example, larger schools may be able to have teams of same-subject, same-grade teachers while smaller schools may have grade level cross-curricular teams that focus less on specific teaching and assessment and more on global policies and practices (Roselle, 2011, p.132). For these teachers without content-area peers they may benefit from inter-schools collaboration. Online collaborative groups can be used to wipe away great physical distances (McNabb, Valdez, Nowakowski & Hawke, 1999). For example, blogs have been used in the Miramichi to do a professional book study with Language Arts teachers that live hundreds of kilometres apart in a large school district (Gallivan, personal communication, February 27, 2013). Technological solution Technology can offer some ways of facilitating sharing of information and collaboration for the PLC’s. These tools can be used in conjunction with face-to-face conversations to post thoughts, questions and reflections to sustain conversation about teaching. Huber (2010) noted that professional forums have been used to save times at staff meetings by posting memos, upcoming events, sharing lessons or presentations, and even pedagogical training
16
videos (p.43-44). As long as accountability is built into following through with content provided on the site then teachers can access information when it is convenient for them instead of after school during a meeting when people are tired and ready to go home (McNabb et al., 1999). Documents can also be built collectively online like items for an agenda or a common assessment. Moreover, the internet also provides a virtually limitless number of opportunities to pursue professional learning through tools like professional journals and blogs, online courses, and webinars. Software can also be used to facilitate data collection and the efficiency of teaching tasks. Anglophone North District is moving to a new system called PowerSchool which enables teachers to input marks and assignments that parents and students can access from home (Johnson, personal communication, February 26, 2013). This tool is also meant to give data quickly and easily about marks, attendance, and behavioural tracking. Plus, once implemented this will ease data collection to inform goal setting. It will also help with other important goals like communication with parents, saving paper, and, once implemented, it could save time compare to printing and writing out interim reports. Conclusion The complexity of implementing professional learning communities should not be underestimated; however, what they can offer a school is worth the effort. If properly implemented PLC’s can create a momentum where reflective learning increases incrementally. Kim and Mauborgne (2003) have done research on transformational leadership in many different fields and they use the image of a tipping point to discuss momentum that can bring about fundamental change very quickly:
17
The theory suggests that such a movement can be unleashed only by agents who make unforgettable and unarguable calls for change, who concentrate their resources on what really matters, who mobilize the commitment of the organization's key players, and who succeed in silencing the most vocal naysayers. (p.62)
Of course it is important to meet current learning targets; however, building this collaborative culture will help to ensure that future educational goals will be met as well (Reeves, 2010, p. 70). Well implemented PLC’s can provide a safe and positive learning community where all students and teachers learn and reach their potential.
18
References Bandura, A. (1993). Percieved self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 (2), 117-148. Beers, T. (2012, June). Upriver Country News. Harcourt, NB: Upriver Community Renewal Community. Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in school: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60 (6), 40. Dufour, R. (2013a) Solution Tree: Rebecca DuFour, three big ideas of a PLC. Retrieved from http://www.solution-tree.com/#prettyPhoto/1/ Dufour, R. (2013b) Solution Tree: Richard DuFour on the importance of the PLC’s. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnWDJFxfAKE Dufour, R., Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008) Revisting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IA: Solution Tree. Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R. & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IA: Solution Tree. Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin and Ontario Principals’ Council. Goodnough, K. (2008 ). Dealing with messiness and uncertainty in practitioner research: The nature of participatory action research. Canadian Journal of Education, 31, 2, 431‐458. Hafizur Rahman, S. M. (2011). Influence of professional learning community on secondary science teachers’ culture of professional practice: The case of Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12 (1), p. 1-22. Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2012). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice [Kindle version]. Available from http://www.amazon.ca/Educational-Administration-ResearchPractice-ebook/dp/B008K9XTYM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358961989&sr=8-1 Huber, C. (2010). Professional learning 2.0. Educational Leadership, 67 (8), 41-46. Kappler Hewitt, K. (2011). Among colleagues: Offer a choice of PLC’s. Educational Leadership, 68 (6), 96. Kirby, D. & Gardner, M. (2011). The schooling they need: Voicing student perspectives on their fourth year in senior high school. Canadian Journal of Education, 33 (1), 108-139.
19
Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Tipping point leadership. Harvard Business Review, 81 (4), 61-69. Lauer, D. & Matthews, M. (2007). Teachers steer their own learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28 (2), 36-41. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Ryan. S. (1997) Leadership and team learning in secondary schools. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 17 (3), 303326. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 28 (1), 2742. Marzano, R. J. (2013). Solution Tree: Robert J. Marzano on developing expert teachers. Retrieved from http://www.solution-tree.com/#prettyPhoto McNabb, M. L., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J. & Hawkes, M. (1999). Technology connections for school improvement. Retrieved from http://courseware.cbu.ca/moodle/file.php?file=%2F511%2Fhandbook.pdf McMullen, K. & Gilmore, J. (2010). A note on high school graduation and school attendance, by age and province, 2009/2010. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81004-x/2010004/article/11360-eng.htm Mitchell, C., & SacKney, L. (2001). Building capacity for a learning community. Canadian Journal of Educational Adminstration and Policy, 19. Mitra, S. (2013). Sugata Mitra: Building a school in the cloud [video]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud.html Mohammad, A. (2004, August). Transforming school culture: Understanding and overcoming resistance to necessary change. District 16 Professional Development. Lecture conducted from James M. Hill High School, Miramichi, NB. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2003). No dream denied: A pledge to America’s children, summary report. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/no-dream-denied_summary_report.pdf New Brunswick Department of Education (2010). NB3-21C: Creating a 21st century learning model of public education: Three-year plan 2010-2013. Retrieved from http://web1.nbed.nb.ca/sites/ASD-W/wms/Parent%20Docs/DoE%20-%20PIP%20(NB321C)%202010-201.pdf
20
O'Neill, J. (2000). SMART goals, SMART schools. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 46 Reeves, D. (2010) Elements of grading: A guide to effective practice [online version]. Retrieved from http://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/ode/EOG/ Reeves, D. (2013a). Changing practice. Retrieved from http://eclassroom.kdsi.org/eClassroom/eClassroom.aspx?reg=248265&cp=103348&loa d=1 Reeves, D. (2013b). Specificty. Retrieved from http://eclassroom.kdsi.org/eClassroom/eClassroom.aspx Reeves, D. (2013c). Reality checks. Retrieved from http://eclassroom.kdsi.org/eClassroom/eClassroom.aspx Roselle, K. F. (2011). Professionalizing practice: How PLC development enhances teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://dspace.rowan.edu/handle/10927/170 Schleicher, A. (2012). Andreas Schleicher: Use data to build better schools. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/andreas_schleicher_use_data_to_build_better_schools.html Scott, S. (2011). Fierce Conversations. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group. Scott, S. (2004). Fierce Conversations: Achieving success at work and in life one conversation at a time. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group. Smith, H. R. (2012) Trust: Principals and collaborative teams. Journal of Education Policy, Planning & Administration, 1(2), 21-44. Retrieved from: http://www.jeppa.org. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23-28, Whitaker, T. (2002). Dealing with difficult teachers. Raleigh, NC: Eye on Education. White, S. H., & MacIntosh, J. (2007). Data delivers a wake-up call. Journal of Staff Development, 28 (2). 32-35.
21
Appendix A Table 1: School X’s Graduation Statistics The following data is from Winshcool for School X in New Brunswick (administration assistant School X, personal communication, February 28, 2013). The data for the purpose of this paper only includes grade 9 enrolment rates and the graduation rates. For more accurate data one would require more detail about transfers in and out throughout the four high school years. However, this school does not have large transfer rates, and for the purpose of the exercise in this paper it is deemed sufficient.
Grade 9 Year Grade 9 enrolment Number who graduated in 4 years Number who graduated in 5 years Number who graduated in 6 or more Number of grade 9’s who enrolled compared to graduated
2004-2005 114 55 5 1 61/114= 53.5%
2005-2006 134 69 6 1 76/134= 57%
2006-2007 122 74 3 1 78/122= 64%
2007-2008 127 76 4 1 81/127 = 64%
2008-2009 92 45 9 possible grads2013
45/92= 49% (57% possible)
Table 2: Stats Canada Data for 2009-2010 (McMullen & Gilmore, 2010). 18 to 19 years old Canada High school graduate Not a high school graduate, attending school Not a high school graduate, not attending school New Brunswick High school graduate Not a high school graduate, attending school Not a high school graduate, not attending school 13.0 81.9 5.0 77.0 14.9 8.1 20-24 year olds 89.5 2.0 8.5 90.2 1.6 8.2
