University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How professional learning communities use student data to increase achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

How professional learning communities use student data to increase achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HOW PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES USE STUDENT DATA
FOR IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT

by

David Reynolds

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 David Reynolds
ii
DEDICATION
To my dad and mom who always encouraged me to go as far as I could
and to not stop short.
To my sisters and brother who always let me know how proud they were of me.
Thank you
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………... ii
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………. iv
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………... v
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY …………………………… 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………… 10

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY …………………………………….. 47

CHAPTER FOUR: INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS …………….. 59

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF
THE FINDINGS ……………………………………………………………... 113

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………. 139
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Developmental Levels of Inquiry-Based Reform ……………………. 20
Table 2: 2007 Robinson Middle and Blue Valley Unified API Scores ………... 51
Table 3: Case Study Interviewees ……………………………………………… 53
Table 4: Robinson Middle Bell Schedule ……………………………………… 65
Table 5: Robinson Middle’s API Scores 2004 – 2007 ………………………… 73
Table 6: Typical Levels of Use of Innovation (Paine, 2008) …………………… 78
Table 7: Math Team SMART Goal-Setting Plan ……………………………… 91
Table 8: Sixth Grade Core SMART Goal ……………………………………... 92
Table 9: Seventh Grade Core SMART Goal ………………………………….. 94
Table 10: Science Team SMART Goal ……………………………………….. 95
Table 11: Sixth Grade Core 2007-2008 First Semester
Social Studies Essential Standards ……………………………………………. 97

Table 12: Seventh Grade Core 2007-2008 First Semester
Language Arts Essential Standards …………………………………………… 97
v
ABSTRACT
No Child Left Behind has brought an increased expectation of accountability
for all students. Professional Learning Communities is a strategy in which teachers
can analyze data, reflect on instructional practices, and plan interventions for the
purpose of increasing student achievement. This model embraces collective decision
making, reflective thinking under the umbrella of a culture of collaboration for the
sole purpose of monitoring student progress, ensuring that all students will learn.
The purpose of this research was to examine a school site in Southern
California, Robinson Middle, which has successfully implemented professional
learning communities, made evident by increasing API scores. Robinson Middle
showed evidence of having a strong culture of collaboration that had developed over
the past four years. The following overarching question was the basis of the literature
review and interviews in the case study: How do Professional Learning
Communities use student assessment data to increase student achievement? The
study also included three supporting research questions: (1) What are the
characteristics of effective professional learning communities that collaborate for the
purpose of student achievement? (2) What do teachers perceive to be the benefits of
working in professional learning communities compared to working in isolation? (3)
How do teachers in professional learning communities use data to change classroom
practices?
Based on my findings, Robinson Middle is supported by a strong leader that
embraces the idea of building a strong culture of collaboration that shares a common
vi
vision for increased student achievement. The school principal, Mr. Thomas, has
supported his staff by creating a time for teams to collaborate in order to share data,
reflect on instructional practices, and plan interventions for struggling students. The
staff embraces collaboration and discourages working in isolation. Creating staff
development workshops for new staff members has helped new teachers to become
active, contributing members of a PLC. Team norms also help team members
understand expectations for collective decision making. Robinson teams also spend
a great deal of time setting academic goals for students, selecting essential standards
for each content area, analyzing and sharing effective instructional practices, and
planning interventions for students not mastering the tested standards.
Other findings also appeared from the research that was not frequently
discussed in existing PLC research. There was evidence from the case study that
frequent reflection of current practices needed to be analyzed for its effectiveness
and solutions needed to be found for issues not always discovered in the research
(i.e., implementing tutorial programs in a current bell schedule, or altering a schedule
to support collaboration time). It was also noted that PLC implementation had an
impact on students who saw that similar practices were used throughout content
areas, allowing for transferability. Finally, it was discovered that often, due to the
fast pacing of a curriculum and testing schedule, that there is not enough time for a
new teacher to assimilate into an already existing PLC team, therefore, requiring
additional support for these teachers to be successful, such as beginning of the year
PLC workshops.
vii
Based on my research from one school site, it seemed as though further case
studies might include examining the implementation of PLCs at typically low
performing schools, including the examination of the effect of PLCs on typically low
performing subgroups, such as the Hispanic / Latino population within a school site.
Further research could also be conducted on the effects of current tutorial programs
and the data outcome of some PLC teams at a school site compared to another for
their effectiveness in looking at data.
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF CALLS FOR REFORM OF THE U.S. EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM
Since the advent of No Child Left Behind, educators have been compelled to
undertake reform measures that would aid all students to perform at the required
academic standards. Teachers have found themselves to be held to a much higher
degree of accountability, primarily through the state assessments that measure
whether or not students have met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and to the
California’s Academic Performance Index (API) which gives a school a score from
200 to 1000 indicating the success of all students in being proficient at state
standards (California Department of Education, 2006).
The calls for reform of American education are not new. A Nation at Risk,
published in 1983, was a result of an eighteen month study in which the objective
was to renew a commitment to high quality education for all students from
elementary to the university level (National Commission on Excellence in Education,
1983). The report presented alarming concerns which indicated that students in the
United States were falling behind internationally and in comparison to American
high school students in years prior. Concerns from the report revealed that alarming
numbers of minority students were illiterate, that students, overall, were performing
lower on standardized tests than twenty years prior. A Nation at Risk was a wake-up
call for states to examine how students would demonstrate mastery of grade level
material, to look at increasing the requirements for students exiting high school, to
2
implement a rigorous curriculum from elementary to the university level, and to
ensure that teachers were prepared and qualified to teach the grade level curriculum.
Goals 2000 was another significant piece of legislation that made an effort to
examine current educational practices and then make recommendations for necessary
reform due to the number of children being born with “at-risk” factors, the
percentage of students not completing high school, and the basic lack of literacy
skills needed for students to perform language arts and mathematics skills. Goals
2000 included goals that would prepare every child to enter school ready to learn,
increase the high school graduation, require students to demonstrate subject matter
competency, provide professional development for teachers in order to improve
instructional practices, and prepare students to be first in the world in mathematics
and science (Goals 2000 Education Program).
A Nation at Risk and Goals 2000 helped to set the groundwork for the passing
of the No Child Left Behind Act by the US Government in January 2002. NCLB has
required every state to implement grade level and content specific standards for
which all students and teachers are accountable. Petersen (2005) states that “state
standards have established what students should know and be able to do, and state
and federal accountability policies – including the recent No Child Left Behind –
require schools to demonstrate that more and more of their students are indeed
mastering those standards (p. 1).”
NCLB makes every district accountable for student achievement results by
requiring that all students in grades three to eight be tested once a year in reading and
3
math. Test results are made public to parents and teachers use the information for
intervention and planning purposes. Parent report cards are made available so that all
community members can see which schools are succeeding and why. If a school is
not performing well and falls into Program Improvement status after not making
Adequate Yearly Progress two years in a row, a parent is given the opportunity to
select of a school of choice for his/her child (U.S. Department of Education).
Consequences for not meeting NCLB mandates have motivated school districts and
sites to look for reform strategies that will assist all students in reaching the
requirements of NCLB.
Professional Learning Communities
Not surprisingly, NCLB and other calls for change have led to a plethora of
reform efforts in American education. One such reform effort is Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs). PLCs offer the opportunity for teachers to
collaborate on a frequent basis by sharing and observing teaching strategies.
Collaboration brings teachers to work together instead of isolating themselves with
their own ideas and skills, not sharing or looking for improvement. PLCs also offer
the opportunity to review grade level standards and to decide what students need to
learn, what strategies will be used to for students to learn those standards, and then to
pick assessments that will help teachers decide if students learned the content
(Hughes & Kritsonis, 2006).
In professional learning communities, there is frequent and informal
interaction among colleagues across all levels of experience. Teachers maintain a
4
sense of shared responsibility for the success of all students, not just for the ones in
their own classrooms. Giles and Hargreaves (2006) state that effective school
environments should also operate as professional learning communities emphasizing
three components: “Collaborative work and discussion among the school’s
professionals, a strong and consistent focus on teaching and learning within the
collaborative work, the collection and use of assessment and other data to inquire
into and evaluate the progress over time (p. 126).” Lavie (2007) describes
professional learning communities as a place “where teachers get involved in
common work; share a range of norms, values, visions, and beliefs concerning
themselves, their students and teaching; and are organized as collaborative cultures
and structures that enhance interdependence” (p. 785).
Participation in strong professional learning communities leads to a learning
community that builds strong teaching practices that in turn leads to greater
effectiveness by all teachers in the school, with a shared goal of student academic
success (Fulton et al. 2005). Well developed professional learning communities are
linked to improved student achievement (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).
Similarly, according to McLaughlin and Talbert (2006), there is data to support the
idea that professional learning communities translate into increased student learning
and improved teacher instruction. Evidence from the research includes “positive
effects of teacher learning community measures on student achievement for both
regional and nationally representative school samples, strong correlations of teacher
5
learning community with teaching practices that predict students learning gains”
(McLaughlin et al., 2006, p. 9).
The Prevalence of Teacher Isolation
As we begin to examine schools with well developed professional learning
communities, it is valuable to compare school environments in which teachers work
in isolation with teachers who work collaboratively toward a shared vision for
student achievement. Within the first five years of a new teaching experience,
approximately 46% of new teachers leave the profession (Fulton et al., 2005).
Teachers cite many reasons for leaving the profession, but one of those reasons is
school culture and professional working conditions. The National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) has recommended to states that it is
important to support the constant development of the teaching community in the
school, and that it is vital to encourage professional dialogue that articulates goals,
values, and best practices of the community (Fulton et al., 2005).
The practice of teachers working in isolation has been shown to weaken a
teacher’s self-efficacy and to diminish confidence in his/her own teaching practice
(Lavie, 2007). Meanwhile, teacher collaboration is limited to social encounters and
individualism is widely accepted and practiced in many schools. This limited
exposure to observation or collegiality also lowers the expectations that teachers
have of their own students and the ability to improve student learning. It is claimed
that teacher collaboration stimulates greater improvements in teaching and learning,
facilitates implementing effective change, and provides possibilities for new models
6
of professional development based on shared reflection in the workplace (Lavie,
2007).
The NCTAF stresses that incorporating new teachers in the learning
community is vital, so that professional relationships can be developed for continued
growth and learning. An important part of any professional learning community is
that all members have a shared sense of responsibility for each other’s successes for
the academic achievement of all students. “Today’s teachers must transform their
personal knowledge into collectively built, widely shared, and cohesive professional
knowledge base” (Fulton et al., 2005, p. 4). In school communities in which new
teachers work alone with little opportunity for interaction or collaboration, these new
teachers learn quickly that they are on their own. Even when a school provides a
mentor or professional development opportunities, the feeling of working in isolation
is still felt to be a very strong part of the school culture (Fulton et al., 2005). In a
school environment in which teachers work in isolation, teachers are not aware of
other teachers’ instructional styles. Again, in this type of environment, a new
teacher is left to work alone, and if he/she can conform to this school culture, this
new teacher will stay, otherwise, the teacher will leave. In this “novice-oriented
culture” the new teacher does not have the opportunity to observe or for anyone to
serve as a mentor. New teachers have few strategies or proven practices to pull
from.
Lavie (2007) points out that there are clear distinctions between schools that
have developed professional learning communities compared to schools where
7
working in isolation is acceptable. A collaborative culture is defined by a broad
consensus on goals and an orientation toward increasing learning performance and
school improvement and change. Lavie (2007) refers to schools where teachers
work in isolation without team collaboration as schools with “sinking school
cultures.”
Does Using Data in Collaborative Teams Really Lead to Improved Student
Achievement?
There has been interest in school teams looking at student work together for
the purpose of increasing student achievement. Roberts and Pruitt (2003) state that
“jointly assessing student work is one of the most effective ways to focus attention
on student learning and it is a powerful factor in developing and maintaining a
professional learning community” (p. 139). The goal of teams working together to
look at student data is to build teacher expertise, to examine the effectiveness of
current classroom instructional practices, and to increase student mastery of
academic standards (Roberts et al., 2003).
In a brief article entitled “Data-Driven Schools,” Petersen (2005) profiled
three schools where teams were engaged in using data to inform instruction. In these
schools, student achievement improved as the schools became more collaborative. A
school culture was developed in which information was shared openly and regularly
and data-driven decision making was done on a regular basis (Petersen, 2005).
Collaboration done over a period of time also helps teachers to monitor the
8
relationship between student achievement and student academic success (Roberts et
al., 2003).
We have a good understanding of what PLCs look like and the need for
administrative support as they develop as a collaborative team. The benefit of PLCs
allows teachers to share data, instructional practices, and plan interventions for
student academic growth, and there are obvious benefits for teachers working in
collaborative groups and an understanding as to why some teachers are hesitant to
share instructional practices or student data (Lavie, 2007, Petersen, 2005, Roberts et
al., 2003). The question becomes how do PLCs actually use data to improve student
growth and sustain that growth over time? And how do PLCs decide on which
instructional strategy to use that will best meet the need of students striving for
academic success or which assessment will best measure what students need to
know?
Research Questions
Using qualitative research methods, this study will examine the process that a
school community takes as they develop an effective professional learning
community. This study will also examine how professional learning communities
use student data for purposes of developing instructional strategies and planning
interventions that will aim to increase the academic achievement of all students. In
brief, this study will examine the following overall question and three sub-questions.
How do Professional Learning Communities use student assessment data to
increase student achievement?
9
• What are the characteristics of effective professional learning communities
that collaborate for the purpose of student achievement?
• What do teachers perceive to be the benefits of working in professional
learning communities compared to working in isolation?
• How do teachers in professional learning communities use data to change
classroom practices?
Significance of this Study
This study will examine how collaborative teams, working through the
developmental stages of team building, create a shared vision, set academic goals,
measure student achievement through ongoing assessments, and analyze data to
determine if effective instructional strategies are being used. Research suggests that
student achievement is often the result of school teams that collaborate on a frequent
basis (Petersen, 2005). This study may help to reveal how improved student
achievement is the result of ongoing team planning, frequent data analysis, sharing
instructional strategies, and planning intervention for student academic success.
10
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
“Professional learning communities empower the teaching staff to work
together with administrators and other teachers to provide quality instruction and
improve student learning” (Hughes et al., 2006, p. 1). In a PLC, time is given to
teachers to make instructional decisions based on student data in a culture in which
instructional practices are discussed. PLCs develop a culture in which teachers are
continuous learners that focus on a similar mission, values, and goals (Nelson,
Palumbo, Cudeiro, & Leight, 2005). According to research findings (Stoll, Bolam,
McMahon, Wallace, & Robert, 2006), the positive result of professional learning
communities is that teachers have a greater confidence in knowing that newly
acquired, shared information will hopefully lead to student achievement. There is
also a greater enthusiasm for collaboration and a greater commitment to changing
practices and willingness to try new things. The benefits for students are enhanced
motivation and greater academic success (Stoll et al., 2006).
Academic success is the ultimate goal of a PLC. However, to fully
understand the development of an effective professional learning community in
which student academic growth is an effect, it is necessary to understand the process
of formulating a collaborative community. This reform effort to increase student
performance is “aimed toward enhancing worker interdependence and increased self-
management, thereby increasing members’ responsibility for the group’s
11
performance and outcomes (Conley, Fauske, & Pounder, 2005). This review of
literature will explore the steps involved in establishing a culture of collaboration,
the role of the site administrator, the struggles as well as the benefits, and how
teachers use data and share collaboratively to improve student achievement by
changing instructional practices. Three main areas will be explored:
• The characteristics of effective professional learning communities that
collaborate for the purpose of student achievement.
• Teachers’ perceived benefits of working in professional learning
communities compared to working in isolation.
• How teachers in professional learning communities use data to change
classroom practices.

Building a Professional Learning Community

Without a competent caring individual in the principal’s position, the task of school
reform is very difficult. Reform can be initiated from outside the school or
stimulated from within. But in the end, it is the principal who implements and
sustains the changes through the inevitable roller coaster of euphoria and setbacks
(Gerstner, Fuentes, & Snyder, p. 133, as cited by DuFour,& Eaker, 1998).

Schools are trapped by a leadership dilemma: they require skilled, effective
principals in order to outgrow their utter dependence on those principals.
(Donahue, 1993, p. 300, as cited by DuFour et al., 1998).

School Leadership
Before a school begins building a culture of collaboration, the school leadership
needs to support the idea of building professional learning communities. School
leaders play a significant role in fostering the development of a professional learning
12
community. Leaders who support innovation and cultural change are identified to
support shared leadership and to focus heavily on academic improvement. School
leaders who support PLCs participate in various roles which are necessary actions to
build effective learning communities including (Annenberg Institute for School
Reform, 2007, Roberts et al., 2003):
• Create and communicate a shared vision
• Model and shared active reflective inquiry
• Invest time in the learning process
• Respect the ideas of staff members
• Seek out ways to empower teacher leaders
• Build sustained academic improvement
In Hord’s (1997) article, Professional Learning Communities: Communities
of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement, she states that collaboration is evident in
schools where the site administrator and school site teachers collaborate in shared
decision making and then stresses the idea that “a school whose staff is learning
together and participating in decisions about its operation requires a campus
administrator who can let go of power and his/her own sense of omnipotence and
omnicompetence and thereby share the leadership role of the school” (p.2).
Principals cannot transform a school through their individual efforts. Building a
school culture of collaboration is a collective effort that will ultimately lead to a
school site with sustained professional learning communities. However, a
community of collaboration has little chance to have sustainability without an
13
effective leader. In the past the role of principal has been identified by someone who
was assertive and forceful, meanwhile, the more contemporary view of a principal
defines a leader as someone who can work collaboratively with others (DuFour et al.,
1998).
In regards to data meetings and role of the site administrator, conversations
on assessment data, analysis of data, and use of current instructional strategies do not
initially begin with teachers, but are typically lead by the site administrator in efforts
to build a collaborative culture for the purposes of student achievement (Boudett,
City, & Murname, 2006). The site administrator needs to also help the staff to
interpret data, how to analyze the data, how to use supporting technology systems,
and also give information on how to use the data for intervention purposes or to
improve instructional practices (Boudett et al. 2006, Petersen, 2005). “School
leadership must develop a vision of excellence that is in balance with assessment
purposes, achievement targets, assessment methods, and ways of communicating
results (Protheroe, Shellard, & Turner, 2003). Often school site administrators will
establish norms on how data meetings should be held in order for teams to be able to
effectively analyze data, build assessments, set goals, and establish changes for
student growth based on student data. Norms may also include expectations for staff
behavior, what materials would be used by principals and staff in data meetings.
These norms help to create a sense of purpose (Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007)
14
Getting a Professional Learning Community Started
Knowing that a strong, supportive principal is necessary for building a
collaborative school environment, the next question for a school wanting to take on a
reform that will hopefully lead to student academic gains is, “How does a school get
started? Based on research and experience working in schools, Dufour et al. (2006)
suggest the following nine tips that will help a school move forward in developing a
professional learning community.
1. Move quickly into action: A flaw that schools or districts make is taking too
much time to discuss implementation. Within a short time a school should be
able to establish a foundation by creating a mission, vision, establish a
commitment to change, and create goals for the purpose of marking progress.
2. Build shared knowledge when asking people to make a decision: Collectively
sharing is critical, especially when a staff needs to collaborate on best
practices, instructional strategies, or perhaps protocol on how to use data for
the purpose of student achievement.
Members of a PLC resolve issues and answer important questions by
asking, “What information do we need to examine together to make a
good decision?” and then building shared knowledge regarding that
information. Learning together, by definition, is the very essence of a
learning community (Dufour et al., 2006, p. 37)

3. Use collaborative teams to assist in the day-to-day decisions of the school
site: When considering proposals or changes, it is important to collectively
reflect on whether or not the change aligns with the school’s purpose, if there
is a commitment to implement a change among staff members, and then
15
collectively decide if the proposed change will help the students increase
academic achievement as goals are pursued.
4. Use the PLC to identify existing practices that should be eliminated: Once
the mission, vision, and goals have been created, practices that interfere with
those pieces should be eliminated.
5. Translate the vision of your school into a teachable point of view: It is
important to express the vision of the school to the school community in
terms that are understandable, capture the vision of the school, and “be able
to engage others emotionally and intellectually” (p. 38).
6. Write value statement as behaviors rather than beliefs. Values statements
need to be direct statements of what a staff is committed to do. For example:
“We will monitor each student’s learning on a timely basis and provide
additional time and support for learning until a student becomes proficient”
(p. 38).
7. Focus on yourself rather than others: A PLC makes a commitment to what it
can do to improve a school, and PLC members look at what they can do to
improve student academic outcomes.
8. Recognize that the process is nonlinear: As the commitment to the
foundation of a developing PLC becomes fully embraced by a staff, the
commitment to goals, the school’s purpose and vision will “become more
real, clearer, and more focused” (p. 39).
16
9. It is what you do that matters, not what you call it: A key to developing a
PLC is to build a culture in which staff engage in reflective inquiry, share
information, reflect on current practices, and be willing to change
instructional strategies for student academic growth. It is not the label of
being a professional learning community that matters, but it is the collective
practice of staff members.

According to Dufour et al. (2006) there are easy steps to begin a PLC. It is
suggested that moving quickly will lead a school into creating a vision and
commitment to change without wasting time discussing an implementation process
that might slow the ultimate goal of building collaborative teams and increasing
student achievement. Hopefully, this will then be followed by shared decision
making which would eventually result in student achievement. As teams move into
action to build collaborative teams, there are four helpful questions to guide learning
organizations toward establishing an organization that uses reflective practice: “(1)
What is our fundamental purpose, (2) What do we hope to achieve, (3) What are our
strategies for becoming better, and (4) What criteria will we use to assess our
improvement efforts (Hughes et al., 2006, p. 9).” According to research findings
(Hughes et al., 2006) these questions can possibly assist a team in building a shared
vision and open reflective communication that will lead to student academic gains.
17
Characteristics of a Professional Learning Community
Along with the four questions that Hughes et al. (2006) suggest to focus a
PLC, they also suggest that professional learning communities focus on three main
ideas: ensure that students learn, create a culture of collaboration, and focus on
results. Stoll et al. (2006) state that there are characteristics that are needed in order
to create a culture in which students learn, teachers share ideas and strategies, and
achievement is not only the responsibility of the child but for the teacher, as well.
Stoll et al.’s (2006) comprehensive review of research on PLCs discusses five
characteristics that define an exemplary professional learning community (Hughes et
al., 2006, Jalongo, 1991, Hord 2004). First, teachers collectively share the same
vision for student achievement and collaborate as a whole on strategies and
interventions to reach academic goals.
Second, teachers collectively share the responsibility for the success of all
students. This commitment to student success creates a strong sense of
accountability and encourages staff members to work collaboratively. Third, teachers
work together to look at strategies to promote academic success. There is a
willingness to accept new knowledge and share information by observation or
analysis of a newly applied strategy. Fourth, collaboration involves an exchange of
ideas, teaching practices, and analysis of assessment data which goes beyond casual
exchanges to an in-depth analysis of teaching practices. “Feelings of
interdependence are central to such collaboration: a goal of better teaching practices
would be considered unachievable without collaboration, linking collaborative
18
activity and achievement of shared purpose” (Stoll et al., 2006, p. 227). Fifth, data is
shared among teams for analysis and interpreted together for intervention purposes.
“Collective learning” is promoted for the purposes of seeing students achieve
academically.
Jalongo (1991) added a sixth characteristic that in order for a professional
learning community to work together there must be a mutual respect and trust for all
members.
Research indicates that there are certain characteristics needed in order for a
PLC to be effective (Stoll et al., 2006, Hughes et al., 2006, Jalongo, 1991, Hord,
2004). Within those characteristics there seems to be overriding idea that
collaboration is essential whether it is sharing the success of all students, collectively
reflecting on effective instructional strategies, or sharing data for intervention
purposes. Jalongo (1991) also points out that for collaboration to work, a mutual
sense of respect and trust needs to be in place in order for the previously stated
findings to effectively take place.
Developmental Stages of a Professional Learning Community
Developing an effective PLC with the defining characteristics, as previously
cited by research, that will assure success and an effective means for communication
is a developmental process (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many 2006, McLaughlin et al.
2006). When schools develop professional learning communities, there are
reportedly three stages in which learning teams evolve: novice stage, intermediate
stage, and the advanced stage (McLaughlin et al., 2006). When transitioning from
19
one stage to another, problems may arise among the learning teams. When this
occurs an effective site administrator assists the teams in defining their role as a
PLC. From the novice to the intermediate stage, the principal makes it clear which
types of decisions stay with the site principal while also encouraging teacher
accountability, shared responsibility, and reflective inquiry (McLaughlin et al.,
2006). Hord (2004) suggests that a “supportive and shared leadership” (p. 6) is an
important characteristic of a professional learning community. During the
intermediate stage, the site principal encourages sustained collaborative work,
promotes risk-taking, and ensures the staff that they have the expertise to analyze
instructional practices, and encourage reflective thinking of instructional practices.
During the advanced stage, the site principal promotes and sustains the collaboration
of professional learning communities. The following chart, Developmental Levels of
Inquiry-Based Reform (McLaughlin et al., 2006, p. 36), gives a brief description of a
PLC at each developmental stage. The site principal will assist each team in
transitioning from one stage to another and to reflect the characteristics of that level.
Table 1 below shows the developmental levels.
20
Table 1 : Developmental Levels of Inquiry-Based Reform

Novice Intermediate Advanced
Teacher
Community
Building a
professional
community; creating
team norms
Develop a norm of
questioning; develop a
shared language
Focus on improved
practice and
accountability
Focused
Effort
Focus on school
reform efforts
Clarify vision; develop
work to implement
vision
Establishing coherence
of school reform
efforts; managing
external pressures
Data Use Discover what data
to use and how to
use it
Manage data for better
use
Develop systems for
managing data
Shared
Leadership
Developing systems
to manage reform
work
Broadening teachers'
leadership roles in
reform
Establishing ownership
of reform work among
most faculty
Inquiry
Procedures
Experimenting with
inquiry and creating
procedures
Focusing on teaching
and learning;
identifying indicators
of student progress
Connecting whole-
school and classroom
inquiry focus and
practices

Similar to McLaughlin et al. (2006), Dufour et al. (2006) suggest that there
are four stages that a staff will experience when developing as a professional
learning community: pre-initiation stage, initiation stage, developing stage, and
sustaining stage. These stages compare closely to the developmental stages that
McLauglin and colleagues have researched with the exception that DuFour and
colleagues do not describe the role of the site leader during each stage. According to
DuFour and colleagues, during the pre-initiation stage, the staff has not established a
core purpose, vision, or attempted to make any goals connected to student
21
improvement. The initiation stage sees teachers making attempts to address the idea
of a professional learning community and create collaborative teams; however, the
attempt is made only by some staff members and not all. The majority of staff
members embrace the idea of professional learning communities during the
developing stage. Traditional practices also begin to change based on student
learning needs during this stage. During the final stage, the sustaining stage, the staff
fully embraces professional learning communities and uses it as a vehicle for making
instructional changes in order to increase student achievement.
Sustaining a Professional Learning Community
Once a PLC reaches the final stage (Dufour et al., 2006) or the advanced
stage of development (McLaughlin et al., 2006) does not mean that a PLC will then
be sustained as an effective collaborative team over time. Even though PLCs are
seen as an effective means for reform in raising student test scores, assuming that it
will sustain itself is faulty. Giles et al. (2006) stress that professional learning
communities should not look at quick-fixes but solutions that bring sustainable
improvements over time. Sustainable improvements will help to prevent the decline
of this reform strategy. As professional learning communities are built, it is
important to be conscious of the factors that will cause a decline in these
communities. According to Giles et al. (2006), the following are factors that will
cease the sustainable improvements that the professional learning communities put
into place:
22
Longitudinal studies of innovative schools point to three common forces
behind their eventual decline or demise: envy and anxiety among competing
institutions in the surrounding system, the evolutionary process of aging and
decline in the organizational cycle, and the regressive effects of large-scale,
standardized reform strategies (p. 127).

Sustainability includes every teacher being willing to become a part of the
professional learning community and having a willingness to share practices and data
openly. Analyzing data for the purposes of changing practices needs to include actual
classroom changes. Stoll et al. (2006) suggest that professional learning
communities have a role to play in changing classroom practices, but its effect on
student growth may be less than what has been suggested by previous research. The
reasons for the lack of student success could possibly be that some teachers are
resistant to change and want to hold on to former practices, and therefore becoming a
part of a professional learning community is not compelling or desired. Even though
school teams may engage in sharing student samples of work and offer feedback for
improved instructional practice, conversation may only be a “friendly collegial
exchange” (Annenberg Institute for School Reform, 2007, p. 6). Often, staff
members are hesitant to make their student work available for scrutiny which would
lead to recommendations for change in classroom instructional practices with the
ultimate goal of improved student achievement (Annenberg Institute for School
Reform, 2007). Friendly collegial exchange will ultimately not produce the same
results as collaboration for the purpose of changing instructional practices for student
growth. Research indicates that changing practices as a result of continual
collaboration will lead to sustainability (Giles et al., 2006).
23
In order to develop that collective purpose, as well as a sense of respect and
trust among the collaborative team, Wald et al. (2000) point out that there are five
norms to facilitate communication and collaboration: “Listen carefully, share
relevant information, develop shared meaning, make assumptions explicit, and
decide by consensus” (p. 63). In PLCs norms represent protocols developed by a
team to guide members in working together. Norms help team members clarify
expectations regarding how they will work together to achieve shared goals (DuFour
et al., 2006). Wald et al. (2003) state that groups norms are especially beneficial
when they allow for teacher reflection and feedback among group members. Teams
are also more productive when there are group norms. When team norms are
enforced and group members take responsibility for the norms, team meetings are
found to be less stressful.
It is also suggested that professional learning communities also have the
power to determine whether changes will last over a long period of time (Stoll et al.,
2006). The resistant teacher and a PLC that is not committed to change for a long
period of time may not see the academic results (Stoll et al., 2006). According to
McLaughlin et al. (2006), this may be a result from professional learning
communities having difficulty with “… trust, time, and talent …” (p. 11). When
teachers do not have the time to collaborate, are unwilling to share openly to
examine reflective teaching practices, or do not have the leadership to build a culture
of collaboration, commitment to collaboration does not take place (McLaughlin et
al., 2006). Even when teams meet creating opportunities for collaboration and
24
increasing the sense of collegiality, often a problem has been that issue of trust or
equity are not addressed. This then leads to teams not engaging in conversations
about instructional practices leading to improved student performance (Annenberg
Institute for School Reform, 2007). According to Datnow et al. (2007) “building a
culture that values the regular, consistent use of data is essential to supporting a
performance-driven system, as otherwise it is easy for educators to slip back into old
routines of making decisions based on instinct alone” (p. 24).
There are additional problems to be watchful of as school leaders and staff
members begin to create professional learning communities (Annenberg Institute for
School Reform, 2007):
• Developing PLC norms sometimes leads to teams focusing on a process
rather than focusing on content based, instructionally focused discussion.
• Leadership roles are sometimes underdeveloped, and other staff members
may not be aware of these leadership roles.
• Groups sometimes fail to collect, analyze, and present evidence beyond
anecdotes. Data are not used and equity in instructional practices is not
addressed.
• Even though time to collaborate is essential, it isn’t the means to an effective
PLC.
While knowing the factors that may cause a PLC to not sustain over time, it
is equally important to know the factors that are considered to be effective in
sustaining a PLC. The key to sustaining a professional learning community and a
25
culture of collaboration over time is found in three specific ideas: communication,
collaboration, and culture (DuFour et al., 1998). It is necessary to communicate the
mission, goal, and values of the school on a daily basis throughout the school. A
lack of communication is cited as the most common reason for failed initiative
changes. Creating a culture of collaboration has been cited as being the number one
reason and factor for implementing a school reform that will have the benefit of
student academic success. Collaboration allows teachers to test their ideas about
teaching, provides opportunities for encouragement and support, and reinforces the
idea of changes in school culture and improvement in student achievement. In order
to build collaboration into the school culture, four criteria must be put into place: (1)
Time for collaboration must be provided during the school day; (2) The reason for
collaboration needs to be made clear; (3) Teachers must be trained and supported as
they begin to develop as a collaborative community; (4) Teachers must have a sense
of self-efficacy and a belief that they can achieve their goals with effort and do not
use their own problems as an excuse for failure (DuFour et al., 1998).
In order to create a sustainable PLC, research states that teachers need to
have a willingness to share practices and data openly (Stoll et al., 2006). In doing
that, trust needs to be established among team members in order for data discussions
to lead to a change in instructional practices. If the trust or time to collaborate are
not created, teacher commitment to change will not sustain, therefore, student
academic results will not be as evident. While factors to a declining PLC have been
identified in research, factors to sustain a PLC have also been noted, including
26
constant communication with all community members, creating a culture of
collaboration for purpose of changing practices for student academic gains, and
building a school culture that values reflective inquiry (Datnow et al., 2007, Dufour
et al., 1998, Giles et al., 2006, McLaughlin et al., 2006, Stoll et al., 2006).
Collaboration or Isolation
Building a Time and Culture for Collaboration
Working in collaboration is one of the central ideas in building a professional
learning community. Even though there is evidence to suggest that team
collaboration is a teaching best practice, teachers in many schools still work in
isolation (Hughes et al., 2006). To assist the effort to build collaborative teams, it is
necessary for a site administrator to creatively arrange for teachers to meet on a
regular basis as a collaborative team. In schools where collaboration is more
apparent, it is more likely that those schools will also experience academic growth as
measured by external and internal measures (Hughes et al. 2006). In Stoll et al.
(2006), the idea for the need to create collaboration time is reinforced when Stoll
(2006) states that “… unless teachers are provided with more supporting and
engaging work environments, they cannot be expected to concentrate on increasing
their abilities to reach and teach today’s students more effectively” (p. 224). Besides
having timely data for student improvement, collaboration time needs to be made
available for teachers to share data and plan instructional strategies (Petersen, 2005,
Protheroe et al., 2003).
27
Lavie (2007) points out those collaborative conversations are a result of a
shared vision of the site principal and staff. A school with a strong organizational
culture that holds high expectations for students, focuses on academic learning, and
encourages an orderly and disciplined climate will see academic growth of students.
Research shows a link between a teacher’s commitment to learning and a student’s
achievement (Lavie, 2007). In a collaborative culture, collaboration makes schools
more effective as well as more equitable environments. Studies also show that one
of the most powerful predictors of teacher effectiveness is community (Lavie, 2007).
Schools where teachers feel more effective are more likely to be working in
environments where human relationships are supportive and teachers share beliefs
and values around the school’s mission, goals, and values (Lavie, 2007). Teachers
benefit when they engage in more satisfying relationships in the workplace. This
helps to reduce their isolation, their uncertainty, their conservative practices, and
their alienation. The teacher community grows from collegiality, therefore,
encouraging mutual support around a shared vision. These collaborative teams
should encourage risk-taking, and developing leadership capabilities as professional
learning communities are developed (Lavie, 2007).
According to Wald et al. (2000), a site administrator “designs a workplace
where relationships are primary, where a sense of belonging and trust is pervasive,
where diversity is valued, and where connections are open and active” (p. 26).
Creating an atmosphere in which teachers feel a sense of belonging and
connectedness is important. Before a teacher can reach his or her potential, a sense
28
of belonging and acceptance needs to take place. Relationships are built on trust.
“Leaders demonstrate their personal integrity and professional competence while
they simultaneously create opportunities for staff to demonstrate their
trustworthiness. The combination of these actions supports the development of
group trust” (p. 27). Leaders in organizations seek ways in which people can
connect to each other. The more access that people have, the more possibilities are
created (Wald et al., 2000).
In the schools studied in Achieving with Data (Datnow et al., 2007), the site
administrators provided time for the staff to meet together, knowing that developing
collaborative relationships was vital for student achievement. With the available
time and established culture of data based decision making for student achievement,
the site administrators found that teachers began to depend on each other for support,
new instructional ideas, and discussions about data. Built in collaboration time
seemed to be the key for developing data based collaborative teams (Conley et al.,
2004). Petersen (2005) takes a bit of a different view and states that data analysis
can happen with the school site principal, with skills specialists, or alone. Petersen
(2005) points out that data conversations do not have to happen in teams, but the
conversations do need to include “what’s working, what’s not, and what will be done
differently as a result” (p. 13). What will be done differently is the question asked,
as well, by collaborative teams.
Working in isolation is often a norm in some school situations in which
teachers do not hold a common vision or share teaching strategies. In some of these
29
schools where teachers work in isolation, there is no common purpose or reason for a
team to work together. However, there are motivating reasons for teachers to work
in collaborative teams. In the Hughes et al. (2006) article, the importance of
collaborative teams is stated by the following:
There is a renewed interest in fostering teacher community or collaboration
as a means to counter teacher isolation, improve teacher practice and student
learning, and build a common vision for schooling. Teachers engaging in
professional collaboration have a greater capacity to improve student learning
(p. 8).

Student academic success due to team collaboration comes from teachers
understanding standards based education, building assessments around grade level
standards, and shareing and analyzing assessment data with a team. Students will
succeed when teachers learn and share together and not work alone, in isolation
(Hughes et al. 2006).
In summary, building a culture of collaboration will lead to student
achievement and encourage teachers to work in collaborative groups and not in
isolation (Lavie, 2007). Lavie (2007) stresses the point that work environments that
build a culture of collaboration have a shared vision that unites the staff as a
community. However, even with a shared vision, time for collaboration needs to be
created in order to support teachers as they work collaboratively (Hughes et al.,
2006, Stoll et al., 2006, Petersen, 2005, Datnow et al., 2007, Conley et al., 2004). A
commitment to student achievement is also vital if a school site wants to see
improved student achievement. This is one reason why availability of time to
collaborate is so important. Teachers need that time to share data and effective
30
instructional practices (Hughes et al., 2006, Lavie, 2007). As PLCs develop, site
leaders also need to build leadership capacity, such as providing a means for staff
members to share their expertise with one another, which in turns allows a staff to
feel a sense of belonging and acceptance (Wald et al., 2000, Lavie, 2007). This, in
turn, builds trust among staff members (Wald et al., 2000).
Why Teachers Work in Isolation
While being aware of the reasons why collaboration is so vital to student
achievement and how time for collaboration is essential, it is also important to look
at staff members who might be reluctant to be a part of a learning community.
McKeever (2003) refers to teachers who are reluctant as “blockers.” The blocker
feels as though it is important slow down or to stop the change process or to maintain
the status quo. Some hope that a blocker will eventually gain understanding of the
concept that collaboration will lead to student achievement and that the blocker will
become a supporter of change. Others believe that the blocker requires too much
time and energy and that time should not be warranted to the blocker’s issues.
McKeever (2003) distinguishes between staff members who are skeptics and those
who are blockers. A skeptic can benefit the team, actually. A skeptic demands that a
team thinks clearly and identifies issues that other team members might not consider.
A blocker, on the other hand, seeks control and requires endless attention. A
blocker’s needs are rarely satisfied and attempts to slow down any progress that a
team makes toward a vision or goal.
31
The reluctance on the part of staff members can also be due to the fear of
collectively examining data and then having that data exposed. In the beginning
years of reform work, collaborative teams tend to collect an enormous amount of
data for the purposes of moving students ahead academically. Often, schools do not
know how to move from collecting data to interpreting the data for the purpose of
improved instructional practices. Teachers often become paralyzed by the fear of
what the data might show. The data could show that the school was moving
backward and not forward. Or, it could show that a teacher’s class is not moving as
quickly ahead as another (McLaughlin et al., 2006). McLaughlin et al. (2006) also
state that schools have “fears of being judged, concern that data might make more
work, fears of retribution if the school failed to reach its goal, and anxieties about
lowering the teaching community’s self-esteem if measurable growth was not
achieved” (p. 31). As teachers transition from one stage to another, those fears
diminish as teacher learning teams work toward shared goals, analyze data
collectively and then share the results.
Dufour et al. (2006) also state that teachers are reluctant because they fear
that data from common assessments will be used to measure the competency of the
teacher. Teachers feel as though results would place teachers into either loser or
winner categories or that common assessments would hurt teacher self-esteem and
possibly lead to merit pay, depending on the success of that teacher’s students.
Teachers also argued against using common assessments by stating that professional
learning communities which clarified essential learning and planned effective lessons
32
would lead to student achievement without the need of having common assessments.
Unfortunately, for years, schools have held a common belief that the right
curriculum, schedule, textbooks, and extended school year, for example, would
guarantee student academic success. However, the mind shift for teachers is to
realize that outcomes and results from common assessments are the criteria by which
schools are seen as to whether they are making a difference in the academic
achievement of its students and not the right curriculum, schedule, or textbooks.
Every profession includes people who are threatened by change. In a
professional learning community, perhaps, the teacher who is inadequate in making
student gains will feel exposed. Jalongo (1991) states the following:
The collegial setting is least satisfying to the least prepared whose shaky hold
to subject matter and uninspired teaching is unmasked in the collegial
environment. This is necessary but sad, and it takes a long time to remedy,
for the least competent teachers learn both subject matter and teaching
practices more slowly than do the others. Nevertheless, the charisma of the
most inspired teachers should dominate the environment. Where it does, the
learning environment can change quite rapidly (p. 38 – 39).

The mediocre teacher is not the only one that may try to escape collaborative
teacher teams. The teacher who has gained admiration and respect due to student
academic success and who has learned to work the system to his advantage may be
hesitant to collaborate on instructional strategies and assess student data for the
purposes of implementing change. These teachers will need to see a professional
learning community as a group who will “meet their needs for belonging, esteem,
and power, or they will go their separate ways” (p. 39). There is also a sense that
even though a collaborative culture decreases isolation, teachers also might feel a
33
sense of losing autonomy and have a difficult time understanding how collective
decision making expands their decision making abilities. In order to understand the
parameters around decision making, often the site administrator and PLC negotiates
a balance between a team’s decision making abilities and the site administrator’s
(Conley et al., 2004).
Traditional schools are characterized by a tradition of teachers working in
isolation who “function as a collection of independent contractors united by a
common parking lot” (Eaker, DuFour, DuFour, 2002, pp. 10-11). Professional
learning communities, in turn, create a culture of collaboration (Eaker et al., 2002).
Even though a school may have skeptic or blockers and teachers who are resistant
due to fear of exposure or an unwillingness to share due to current success in the
classroom (McKeever, 2003), according to Eaker et al. (2002) collaboration for these
teachers should not be an invitation but an expectation. Eaker et al. (2002) states that
if schools are to improve, they need to develop into professional learning
communities in which collaboration is a part of the school culture and every decision
made involving student learning is made through a collaborative process. When in a
professional learning community, it is suggested that teachers learn to work as a
collaborative group, and in this developing collaborative culture working in isolation
is hopefully replaced by working in collaborative teams (Eaker et al., 2002).
34
How do Professional Learning Communities Use Data to
Improve Student Achievement?

Teacher Accountability and Reflective Practices Lead to Student Gains
Collaborative teams who effectively work together spend a great deal of time
looking at data to change instructional practices in order to increase student
achievement. Due to No Child Left Behind there is a strong emphasis on results, in
particular student achievement. “State standards have established what students
should know and be able to do, and state and federal accountability policies –
including No Child Left Behind – require public schools to demonstrate that more
and more of their students are indeed mastering those standards” (Petersen, 2005, p.
1). There has been a move to performance driven data, holding teachers accountable
for what has been taught. In order for students to improve academically, it has been
shown that frequent use of data in instruction was vital (Petersen, 2005).
Research has claimed that professional learning communities that share a
common purpose and vision, and exchange in meaningful reflective teaching
practices have created environments in which teachers’ self-efficacy and student
motivation have increased which has resulted in greater student academic growth
(Stoll et al., 2006). In schools with effective professional learning communities, it
has been found that students perform at higher levels. Effects have been strong in
disadvantaged areas. In a longitudinal study of 820 US high schools and almost
9904 teachers, it was found that achievement gains were much higher in schools
35
where faculty took a collective responsibility for student achievement or failure
(Stoll et al., 2006).
The research that the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools
completed suggested that “comprehensive redesign of schools, including … shared
decision making, schools within schools, teachers teaming, and / or professional
communities on staff, can improve student learning” (Hord, 2004, p. 12). Four
factors were discovered that lead to improved student learning which is supported by
professional learning communities (p. 13):
1. Student learning: Teachers agreed on goals, and what high quality work
would look like. These goals and expectations are communicated to students.
2. Authentic pedagogy: Ongoing assessments to mark student growth and
effective instructional practices are implemented for all students.
3. Organizational capacity: In the most successful schools, teachers took a
collective responsibility for student learning and teachers worked
continuously to improve instructional practices in order for students to
improve academically.
4. External support: Schools received financial, technical and political support
from districts and the school community.
Research suggests that in order for students to make achievement gains,
teachers need to share data on a regular basis (Petersen, 2005). In order to have
available data, assessments need to be frequent so that there is available data to
analyze to determine if students are making progress or not toward a goal.
36
Reflection on instructional practices needs to be a collective responsibility and
should also be ongoing, so that teachers can plan interventions for students not
making progress (Hord, 2004, Stoll et al., 2006). It is also suggested that teachers set
goals for their students and that they are communicated to students (Hord, 2004).
Seemingly data collection and analysis of that data is the key to high stakes
accountability (Hord, 2004).
Goal Setting and Providing Student Feedback
Setting goals for student achievement is a precursor to data driven decision
making (Datnow et al., 2007). Achievement goals help guide a staff toward a
desired outcome. Taking the time to set school, grade level or individual student
goals is purposeful when assessing data or planning intervention strategies or
choosing a best practice (Datnow et al., 2007). Marzano (2003) states that
“establishing goals for individual students is perhaps more powerful than setting a
few schoolwide goals” (p. 46). Student goals are even more effective when the
student is involved in setting them. Protheroe et al. (2003) quotes Mike Schmoker in
regards to goal setting, collaboration, data analysis:
The school should concentrate on three very simple things – focused,
collaboration learning; measurable goals; and data. Begin by looking at the
data to establish one or two measurable goals…Then have teams of teachers
get together regularly to talk about their progress, focusing like a laser beam
on specific emergent problems preventing students from doing well relative
to their year end goal. If a school does these things, it’s all but certain to
make some real progress (p. 34).

Schools that do not set goals often have a fear of failure of not making the
goals. Sometimes, goals are not set due to not knowing how to set the goals, as well.
37
Clark and Estes (2002) state that it is important to set a goal at a point that “take
people beyond their current comfort zones, but set the bar at a point that is within
reach with maximum effort” (p. 27). Due to these issues and realizing the importance
of goal setting leading to student achievement, Nelson et al. (2005) created a process
for setting goals. First, be specific and describe what students should be able to do.
Then, describe how you will assess what every student should learn. Set attainable
goals by using instructional practices that will lead to that goal. It is important that
the goal is relevant and connected to the success of students in what they should
learn. The goal should also include at what point the students should be able to reach
the goal. Finally, every student should be included in goal setting in order to narrow
the achievement gap.
Clark et al. (2002) suggests that goals should be clear and measurable,
challenging, and short term rather than long term. He continues to state that without
clear cut goals, it is not possible to know whether we’re achieving or failing.
According to DuFour et al. (2006) a collaborative team works interdependently to
achieve a common goal for which all group members are held accountable. Goals
must be specific and measurable. The SMART acronym helps teams to guide teams
in setting goals. Goals need to be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, timely,
and for everyone (Nelson et al., 2005).
As teams evolve through the previously discussed stages of PLC
development, student goals take on deeper meanings. In the beginning, a school may
have no defined goal for student achievement. Sometimes, if a goal exists it has
38
been developed by the school administrator. Often, as teams begin to develop they
may write goals that are written in very broad terms which may be impossible to
measure or reach. These types of goals may have little effect on instructional
strategies. During the next phase as a team works toward student achievement, short
and long term goals are set for the school, which are clearly communicated to the
school community. Internal measures and strategies are developed and implemented
to measure progress toward the goals. During the last phase of development,
professional learning communities have goals that are clearly linked to the school’s
shared vision. Goal attainment is celebrated and teams constantly reexamine goals,
strategies, and analyze data for individual student success and growth (Dufour et al.,
2006).
Students need to receive feedback in a timely manner on internal measures as
they work toward their goals. In order for data to be used effectively, data also need
to be made available to teachers in a timely manner so that it can be used to alter
instruction for student mastery of standards (Petersen, 2005). Marzano (2003) points
out “that academic achievement in classes where effective feedback is provided to
students is considerably higher than the achievement in classes where it is not” (p.
37). Marzano (2003) and Protheroe et al. (2003) also stress the point that feedback
on ongoing formative assessments needs to be specific to the skills and standards that
the student was expected to learn. This is why that Protheroe et al. (2003) states that
schools should establish the standards to be assessed and benchmarks before
implementing an assessment program. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Karhanek, G. (2004)
39
point out that a teacher who is in a PLC will begin a lesson or unit by telling the
students what they will learn by the end of the lesson or unit so that the students will
know which standards will be assessed. This will allow for students to be familiar
with the standards that will be assessed. By students knowing about the essential
standards that will be assessed, it is assumed that these students will perform better
on assessments (DuFour et al. 2006). “Some researchers assert that appropriate and
systematic use of formative assessment could drastically improve achievement of
students” (Marzano, 2003, p. 37).
Triangulating Multiple Sources of Data
Data from formative or summative assessments are one type of data for
teachers to collect, but Boudett et al. (2006) and Protheroe et al. (2003) state that
schools should triangulate data, by not only looking at assessment data but by also
looking at “classroom reports, lab reports, reading journals, unit tests, homework, or
teacher observations … conduct focus groups with students to talk about their own
thinking … (Protheroe et al., 2003, p. 2).” In combination with the quantitative data,
these forms of qualitative data can also be used to triangulate information when
determining the success of a student. Triangulated data can also appear as day to day
classroom assessments that are formative which would indicate whether learning is
taking place. This allows the teachers to see if a learning barrier is occurring with a
student or students (Protheroe et al., 2003). In triangulating data further beyond
assessments or student work, Datnow et al. (2007) suggest that “student behavior and
discipline data (p. 36)” are also important when addressing student academic needs.
40
Establishing student discipline goals can also be effective in helping students to
academically achieve.
Effective Instructional Strategies for Student Gains
Analyzing data and then making appropriate instructional changes for student
improvement is an ongoing process. Collaboration involves a review of standards
and benchmarks, collecting and analyzing data correctly, and then determining the
appropriate actions or instructional strategies that need to be put in place for student
growth. This collaborative approach is an ongoing cycle (Protheroe et al., 2003).
The challenge for the professional learning community becomes knowing which
instructional strategy to use in order for students to achieve academically as the
students and teachers work toward an instructional goal. An instructional strategy
needs to be chosen that will help students to master a skill or standard (Boudett et al.,
2006, Marzano, 2003).
In looking at teaching practices that may improve student achievement, an
environment that “supports innovation and experimentation” (p. 229) is necessary
(Stoll et al., 2006). Team collaboration begins with teachers dialoguing about best
teaching practices that will move students forward academically. What teachers
assume is a good teaching practice may not be the case; therefore, teams should
make a collaborative effort to research actual best practices. Dialoguing should also
evolve around students’ assessments and the instructional practices that were used
that may have contributed to the results. Current practices should be analyzed with
current data for effectiveness. A collaborative team may decide to replace current
41
practices with the aim of improving student academic achievement if current data
has not shown student academic growth (Hughes et al., 2006).
Focus on Results
Professional learning communities focus on results (DuFour, 2004). In a
professional learning community, an educator is more concerned with what a student
has learned rather than what the student has been taught (DuFour, 2004). In the
schools studied in Achieving with Data (Datnow et al., 2007), teachers discovered
that after analyzing assessments that there was a difference between what was taught
and what was learned. The shift needs to be from teaching to learning. Dufour
(2004) states that teachers need to ask three critical questions: “(1) What do we want
each student to learn? (2) How will we know when each student has learned it? and
(3) How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty learning?” (p. 5).
Dufour (2004) states that every teacher needs to be familiar with what every child
should be able to accomplish at the end of each unit or chapter. Then, once the
teacher has an understanding of what is to be learned, the next question is how the
teacher will know whether or not the student is able to accomplish a task. In a
school where professional learning communities work together, formative
assessments would be given to see if students are able to master a standard that has
been deemed as essential. If the child has shown that he/she has not mastered the
standard, then the question the PLC needs to discuss is what steps will be taken or
instructional strategies put in place for that child to master that content standard.
DuFour (2004) states the following:
42
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 a goal, and providing evidence of
progress. 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 (pp. 10-
11).

When students do not learn, time and support become variables (DuFour et
al., 2004). Some students will require more time to learn so the school site needs to
develop strategies for those students to acquire the information for the time needed to
master the content. Some students also require additional support other than a
classroom setting. One-on-one support or small group tutoring may be needed to
help the student master the standard. It should be the school site’s responsibility to
provide the support and time, not the classroom teacher. A teacher working in
isolation would be unable to provide the most effective strategies for student
learning. Defining the needed strategy whether it is time or support takes the
collaborative effort of the entire school community (DuFour et al., 2004).
Students’ results are the key question to look at when a school is going
through a reform for the purpose of student achievement. Unless measurements are
used to mark student growth toward a goal, then teachers would hope that
achievement would be reached without really knowing for sure. Internal measures
used to mark student growth toward a goal have a meaningful purpose as it is used to
show if a student has gained mastery and understanding of a skill or standard
(Hughes et al. 2006). Local internal measures, district benchmarks, and state
assessments are the usual assessments that are used to mark student growth and
43
achievement. Local standards based benchmarks also help teachers know which
students are mastering standards. These standards based assessments help students
know which standards were learned which in turn helps teachers to plan future
instruction (Datnow et al. 2007). Marzano (2003) states that schools need to
administer internal measures at least every nine weeks, in order for students to
receive feedback once a quarter on standards and skills mastered. Again, it is
important for professional learning communities to define what standards are
essential, determine what measurement will be used to show if a student has
mastered that standard, and be able to plan interventions for students not yet able to
master standards (Hughes et al. 2006).
Conclusion
As discussed above, research indicates that PLCs involve the entire school
teaching community by changing the instructional practices to best practices that
result in student achievement. Improved strategies agreed on by the PLC affect
every student. From the literature, there is an indication that there is a direct link
between collaborative groups and student performance (Conley et al., 2004),
assuming such groups focus their work directly on improving student achievement,
examining student work, and jointly planning for instruction and remediation. There
is also evidence that the site administrator plays an important part in developing an
effective leadership team that works toward student achievement by analyzing data
frequently, changing instructional practices, and planning interventions for students
who are not achieving. Researchers have concluded that as the teams begins to work
44
together, the site administrator also needs to be aware of the developmental stages of
the PLC and assist teams as they transition from one stage to another, while at the
same time sustaining the PLC for continual teacher improvement and student growth
(DuFour et al., 2006, McLaughlin et al., 2006). According to DuFour (2006) getting
started may be difficult but DuFour has cited nine tips to help PLCs to begin as they
develop norms that will help them develop shared values and responsibilities, engage
in reflective practices, collaborate frequently, be open to continuous learning, and
finally develop a shared sense of respect (Hughes et al., 2006; Jalongo, 1991; Hord
2004).
Even though research indicates that achievement results are a result of
collaboration, there are some teachers who still prefer to work in isolation.
Researchers have provided explanations for why for some teachers who transition
from working in isolation to working in collaborative groups find it to be difficult
and unwanted. From the literature, fear of not wanting to share student data or
perhaps for the fear of being judged, are cited as reasons for avoiding PLCs.
However, this fear seems to diminish as teams begin to work collaboratively toward
a shared purpose or goal (McLaughlin et al., 2006). McKeever (2003) pointed out
that even though some teachers may be resistant to collaborative teaming, some
teachers are only “skeptics” who are inquisitive and question issues in order to
clarify change in practices. Having a resistant teacher can be a positive thing. As the
skeptic begins to understand the school mission and goal thoroughly, research
indicates that the teacher will begin to embrace the school goals and commit to an
45
inquiry based model of professional teaming. In order for the collaboration to take
place, the idea of providing time for collaboration was restated throughout the
literature. Having time to collaborate may take creative planning but will be
valuable as student academic success is seen as a result of that collaboration time.
As researchers have concluded, PLCs with a shared vision in mind need to
collaborate on a frequent basis by sharing data and effective instructional practices.
Of course, the ultimate goal of a PLC is to see increased student achievement which
would be the result of student goal setting, frequent assessment of content standards,
analysis of data, reflection on best instructional practices for student academic
growth, and identifying students who are still not learning and collectively deciding
next steps for these students. Again, research shows that school communities that
reflect on these questions collaboratively and who are willing to change instructional
practices have seen increased student academic performance (Stoll et al., 2006).
Increased student achievement is the goal of every school site, and PLCs are a school
reform strategy that has been shown through research to ultimately lead to increased
student performance.
The purpose of this study is to examine whether the findings from the
literature hold true in an actual school site implementing PLCs. Specifically, the
study will examine the characteristics of a professional learning community (Hughes
et al., 2006, Stoll et al., 2006) and their implementation at a school site that has
shown improved student achievement. The study will assess whether or not all of
these characteristics were needed for student achievement and how one characteristic
46
weighed against another in its effectiveness toward student achievement. This study
will also examine how teacher isolation is a deterrent to students making academic
gains and how teachers who do collaborate have a positive affect on student growth
(Hughes et al., 2006, Lavie, 2007). Finally, this study will examine how teachers use
a cyclical approach of selecting essential standards for instruction, assessing students
regularly, analyzing student data, examining instructional practices, and planning
intervention for students not mastering standards leads to student achievement for all
students (Boudett et al., 2006, Datnow et al., 2007, DuFour et al., 2006, Hord, 2003,
Hughes et al., 2006, Marzano, 2003, Petersen, 2005, Protheroe et al., 2003, Stoll et
al., 2006). In all, the relevance of this study is to show how the combination of
having the essential characteristics for building a professional learning community in
which teachers collaborate regularly for the purpose of student achievement in a
middle school in Southern California can lead to student academic success.
47
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate how one particular school site
implemented a professional learning community for the purpose of using data to
improve student achievement. One elementary school was selected in Johnson
County
1
, California in order to answer the following research questions:
• What are the characteristics of a PLC as they go through the developmental
stages of an inquiry based reform model to become an effective and
sustainable collaborative team?
• Why are some teachers resistant to belonging to a professional learning
community despite the reported benefits of working in collaboration?
• How do teachers in a collaborative environment use data to change
instructional practices for student academic growth.
A case study was conducted involving interviews, observations, and a review
of documents at one school site. The analysis of all information resulted “in the
identification of recurring patterns in the form of categories, factors, variables,
themes (Merriam, 1998, p. 11).” The major issue in the case study was to identify
the characteristics of an effective PLC and how it used data to improve student
achievement. This case study looked at a “process, or the perspectives and
worldviews of the people involved (Merrian, 1998, p. 11).” In this case, the

1
For the purpose of confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for all place and person names.
48
perspective of teachers and a site administrator were examined and analyzed in order
to understand the process that one particular school site took in implementing a PLC
and how they used the collaborative process to increase student achievement.
This case study is descriptive in nature. It examines the factors that influence
an effective PLC, from the support of a school site administrator to the reluctance of
staff members who are hesitant to share instructional practices or data in the
collaborative process. The factors that influence the sustainability of a PLC over
time are also be examined. Through teacher interviews and observation of team
collaboration meetings, the collaboration process was noted and observed for its
effectiveness on student achievement. The goal of this case study is to use a variety
of information to gain a deeper insight into the school’s collaboration process
(Merriam, 1998).
Sample and Population
According to Merriam (1998), “purposeful sampling is based on the
assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight, and
therefore must select a sample from which the most can be learned (p. 61).” A
purposeful case study will have criteria that have been established for what is to be
studied. In this case study, a school site was studied that has implemented a PLC for
the purpose of increasing student achievement. The purpose of the study was to gain
insight on how the PLC was implemented and its effectiveness toward increasing
student achievement that have been made as a result of ongoing collaboration. A
school site was selected for this case study based on the following criteria in place:
49
• A school leader that supports the development of PLCs and continuously
builds a culture of collaboration
• A school site that is in the advanced or sustainability stage of developing as a
PLC as evidenced by the following criteria:
o Student goals aligned with essential standards are in place
o Common assessments are used
o Data is shared and analyzed
o Instructional practices are reviewed for effectiveness
o Interventions are planned based on results of student assessments
This case study took place at Robinson Middle School in Blue Valley Unified
School District. Blue Valley Unified is located in Johnson County and serves a
diverse student population, the largest of which is its Hispanic / Latino population.
Blue Valley has eighteen elementary schools five middle schools, three high schools
and one continuation high school.
The principal of Robinson Middle, Mike Thomas, is well known in Blue
Valley Unified for his expertise in professional learning communities and regularly
consults with schools outside the district. According to the School Accountability
Report Card, Mr. Thomas states the following as a reflection of his expertise and
commitment to professional learning communities at his school site (School
Accountability Report Card 2006-2007).
The true strengths of the instructional program at Robinson are planning and
preparation. As a professional learning community, teachers invest
tremendous time and effort to collaboratively align unit and lesson plans to
50
District and State standards, to create cross-curricular learning experiences,
and to develop assessment tools that are capable of measuring both the depth
and complexity of students’ understanding and mastery of the content (p. 16).

Robinson Middle School has seen success as it has increased its API score by
sixty-three points since 2003. In 2003, Robinson Middle’s API score was 860 and
increased to 923 in 2007 (California Department of Education, Robinson Middle
Accountability Report). Robinson does not reflect the district population in terms of
its demographics; Robinson Middle’s significant subgroups do not include the
socioeconomically disadvantaged, English Learners, students with disabilities,
African Americans, or Filipinos. However, Robinson Middle’s API score for Asian,
Hispanic/Latino, and White students is higher than the overall API scores for those
three subgroups when compared to the district’s API scores for Asian,
Hispanic/Latino, and White students. Perhaps this is an indication that the role of
PLCs at Robinson have contributed to student academic growth. Robinson Middle’s
significant subgroups along with their API scores include the following, as seen
below in Table 2 (California Department of Education, Pioneer Middle
Accountability Report, California Department of Education, Blue Valley Unified
Accountability Report):
51
Table 2: 2007 Robinson Middle and Blue Valley Unified API Scores
SIGNIFICANT SUBGROUPS ROBINSON MIDDLE
2007 API SCORE
BLUE VALLEY UNIFIED
2007 API SCORE
Asian 956 923
Hispanic/Latino 824 721
White 909 876

In selecting a school site to conduct the case study, I looked for
recommendations for a site that had successfully implemented PLCs. After some
investigation and inquiry from colleagues, I was referred to Mr. Thomas by a
member of the staff at a nearby school. Mr. Thomas conducted a professional
development in professional learning communities at the school site where they have
since implemented his suggestions. He also came highly recommended due to his in
depth understanding and knowledge of PLCs. After several communications through
e-mail, Mr. Thomas agreed to have me interview his teachers during the course of
one day, as well as observe teachers in a team meeting examining assessment data.
Establishing a date to interview the staff was difficult. It took repeated emails to
finally confirm a date and time. It was interesting that even though Mr. Thomas
almost seemed hesitant to have me interview his staff due to his seeming reluctance
to answer my emails, once the interviews were conducted, I was invited back
graciously and without hesitation to observe Robinson’s PLC meetings. At that
point, Mr. Thomas and I communicated often regarding observation times.
52
Participants and Methodology
This case study used interviews to investigate, examine, and analyze
information regarding the effectiveness of a PLC that has been determined to be
effective in increasing student achievement. In Merriam (1998), Patton is sited as
describing interviews in the following way:
We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly
observe … We cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot
observe behaviors that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot
observe situations that preclude the presence of an observer. We cannot
observe how people have organized the world and the meanings they attach
to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people questions about those
things. The purpose of interviewing them, then, is to allow us to enter into
the other’s perspective (p. 72).

The interviews took place during the regular school hours during the month
of November 2007. I was allowed to use the assistant principal’s office due to her
absence. There was privacy during the interviews; however, the principal did walk
in during two of the interviews to exchange pleasantries. My concern then became
one of wondering if the teacher being interviewed would change his/her tone during
or after his appearance, but that was not the case in both situations. The office
manager scheduled teachers to be interviewed during their conference periods.
Surprisingly, all teachers who were interviewed were very willing to donate their
planning time to this case study and seemed to be excited to talk about professional
learning communities. Participants in this case study included a variety of teachers
from the sixth to the eighth grade, representing varied content areas. All teacher
names are fictitious in order to protect the identity of the actual teacher who was
53
interviewed. The following teachers and principal were interviewed for this case
study, as seen in Table 3.

Table 3: Case Study Interviewees
NAME GRADE LEVEL AND CONTENT AREA
Mike Thomas Principal
Jack Baker President of the Teachers’ Union, History Teacher
David Robert 7
th
and 8
th
Grade Science Teacher
Lori Sportsman Art and Yearbook Teacher
Teresa Henry 6
th
Grade Core (Social Studies and Language Arts) Teacher
Miriam Turner 7
th
Grade Core (Social Studies and Language Arts) Teacher
Monica Babayan ELD and AVID Teacher
Elsie Paulsen 6
th
Grade Science Teacher

Mr. Thomas was sent a flyer recruiting teachers to be participants in my case
study. After a period of a few weeks, Mr. Thomas informed me that he had teachers
who were willing to participate in the interview and therefore a one-day visit was
scheduled to interview all participants. The interviews were standardized open-
ended interviews consisting of a set of questions that were worded the same in order
to gain information regarding PLCs. Each teacher interviewed was asked the same
set of sixteen questions (A copy of the teacher protocol is included in Appendix A).
54
The standardized open-ended interviews in this case study minimized variation in
how the questions were asked to each interviewee (Patton, 2002). According to
Patton (2002), there are four major reasons for using a standardized open-ended
interview:
1. The exact instrument used in the evaluation is available for inspection by
those who will use the findings of the study.
2. Variation among interviewers van be minimized where a number of different
interviewers must be used.
3. The interview is highly focused so that the interviewee time is used
effectively.
4. Analysis is facilitated by making responses easy to find and compare (p.
344).
The interviews lasted approximately thirty-five to forty-five minutes
depending on the information that each interviewee was willing to share, as well as,
knowledge level and active participation in the PLC. The principal’s interview
consisted of twelve questions and lasted for approximately sixty minutes (A copy of
the administrator protocol is included in Appendix B). All interviews were tape-
recorded and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcriber resulting in hundreds
of pages of transcribed interview data.
Observation of two team meetings, the sixth and seventh grade core, were
also conducted on Robinson’s late start Wednesdays in order to gain greater
understanding of the collaborative process in which test data is analyzed,
55
instructional strategies are reviewed, interventions are planned, and planning is
aligned with content specific standards. Core classes consist of language arts and
social studies. A protocol was used during the observation, which contained eleven
major points to consider (A copy of the observation protocol is included in Appendix
C). According to Patton (2002), there are six advantages to personally observing a
setting. First, with direct observation conducted the inquirer is better able to
understand the context in which people operate or collaborate. Second, being in the
actual setting the observer will be able to be more “open, discovery oriented, and
inductive (p. 262).” Third, observations of the setting may be different from
information that was stated in an interview. Fourth, information on sensitive topics
may be revealed in a group setting rather than in a one-on-one interview in which the
interviewee may be hesitant to talk. Fifth, observations provide a more
comprehensive analysis of the study than interviews in which information may be
presented as second-hand information. Finally, the observer is able to use
impressions and feelings of the observation which is then used in the interpretation
of the data.
Data Analysis and Procedures
As noted above, data were collected from teacher and principal interviews, as
well as two observations of collaborative team meetings. Information from
interviews and observations allowed for analysis of how Robinson Middle has been
able to sustain itself as a collaborative community. Data from the interviews and
observations allowed for the analysis of the role of the teacher in the professional
56
learning community and why it promotes collective learning and inquiry. Finally,
information from the interviews and observations provided information on how
Robinson Middle teachers use data to change instructional practices and increase
student achievement.
Coding was guided by the overall research question and three sub questions.
Coding was done manually. Color coding was used to separate information into the
three overarching research questions. On the printed transcripts, color brackets in
either blue, yellow, or green were placed around the three broad research questions.
Information within those three broad categories was then separated out and coded
into sub categories (A list of the codes is included in Appendix D). The data allowed
me to see whether there was a connection between the characteristics of building a
PLC, working collaboratively, and analyzing student data for changed instructional
practices leading to student achievement. Rubin and Ruben (1995) suggest that the
researcher put all information that relates to one theme of the research into one
category. The researcher can then, after completing all categories, compare all
categories for connections. The idea is that, after analyzing the categories and the
connections between them, the researcher would be able formulate interrelated ideas
across the categories into a theory. Yin (2003) stressed the point that researchers are
to treat the evidence fairly in order to make effective conclusions. I abided by these
guidelines as I moved from the coded data to creating text that weighed the evidence
gathered from the various sources and summarized the data for each research
question.
57
Ethical Considerations
Procedures and guidelines established by the University of Southern
California in regards to data collection, analysis and reporting was to be adhered to.
Ethical considerations include informed consent, confidentiality, and the protection
of the participants’ anonymity. In order for participants to answer interview
questions honestly, participants were informed that all responses would be
anonymous and any reporting of information from the interviews would remain
confidential. All data gathering, including taped interviews, interview transcripts,
and observation notes remained confidential. All information presented in this
dissertation will protect the name of all participants from having their identity
exposed.
Limitations of the Study
This case study was conducted at one school site. Robinson Middle was
chosen for this case study due to its success in increasing student achievement based
on the collaborative efforts of PLCs. Since Robinson Middle is not a Title I school
with a large socioeconomically disadvantaged student population, obstacles and
challenges at Robinson Middle may appear much different than in a Title I school,
for example. Therefore, information on procedures that has made the success of
PLCs at Robinson Middle may not be completely transferable to another school site
due to differing demographics, support of the site administrator, and teaching staff.
However, the purpose of the study is to examine factors that have allowed
Robinson Middle to become successful at increasing student achievement. It is the
58
hope that research findings of these overlying principles will allow other school sites
to implement PLC strategies that will support them in being successful at increasing
student achievement regardless of the student population.
59
CHAPTER FOUR
INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS
To create a professional learning community, focus on learning rather than
teaching, work collaboratively, and hold yourself accountable for results (DuFour,
2004, p.1)

PLCs came about because we needed a better way to do things. I have always said it
and I hear Mike, our principal, say it a lot. Work smarter not harder, and I tell that
to my kids all of the time. If you take five minutes of planning, it is worth an hour of
frustration, and I live by that. You just take it, plan it for five minutes, and it makes a
big deal (Interview participant, Robinson Middle, 2007).

Introduction

As mandated by No Child Left Behind schools and districts are being held
accountable for all students learning state content standards. 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 (Du Four, 2004). The essence of a learning
community is a focus on, and a commitment to, the learning of each student. When a
school or district functions as a PLC, educators within the organization embrace high
levels of learning for all students as both the reason the organization exists and the
fundamental responsibility of those who work within it. In order to achieve this
purpose, the members of the PLC, create and are guided by a clear and compelling
vision of what the organization must become in order to help all students learn.
They make collective commitments clarifying what each member will do to create
such an organization, and they use results-oriented goals to mark their progress.
60
Members work together to clarify exactly what each student must learn, monitor
each student’s learning on a timely basis, provide systematic interventions that
ensure students receive additional time and support for learning when they struggle,
and extend and enrich learning when students have already mastered the intended
outcomes (Dufour et al., 2006).
This chapter is an analysis of data collected from interviews conducted at
Robinson Middle School. The purpose of the investigation was to examine the
implementation of PLCs at this school, how it was able to sustain the PLCs within
the school over a period of time, and the how implementation of PLCs affected
instructional practices and overall academic success of the students.
Briefly, Robinson Middle implemented the PLC concept when Mike Thomas
became principal of the school site in 2003. Mr. Thomas is known for his expertise
in learning communities and often conducts district workshops on the topic, as well
as conducting workshops at neighboring school districts. Mr. Thomas also works
with Solution Tree and Rick DuFour, the renowned expert on professional learning
community implementation. Mr. Thomas implemented learning communities
gradually over the past four years until the staff took ownership of the process, which
is now a part of their work routine in improving student academic success.
The Research Questions
The findings in this chapter are organized to respond to the following
research questions. Overarching question: How do Professional Learning
Communities use student assessment data to increase student achievement?
61
• What are the characteristics of effective professional learning communities
that collaborate for the purpose of student achievement?
• What do teachers perceive to be the benefits of working in professional
learning communities compared to working in isolation?
• How do teachers in professional learning communities use data to change
classroom practices?
Characteristics of Effective Professional Learning Communities

The literature review in chapter two covers five major areas that attempt to
define the characteristics of an effective PLC: school leadership, getting a PLC
started, characteristics of a developing PLC, and sustaining it over time. The
teachers and site administrator of Robinson Middle who were interviewed shared
information that gave insight to the development of Robinson Middles’ PLCs over
the past four years and what has sustained it from its initial implementation. Overall,
they all gave a favorable impression from the time if its conception to the point now
where it seems to be part of the normal functions of the school site.
School Leadership
The school change and educational leadership literatures clearly recognize
the role and influence of the campus administrator on whether change will occur in
the school. It seems clear that transforming a school organization into a learning
community can be done only with the guidance of the leaders and the active
reflective thinking and shared decision making of the entire staff as they develop as a
professional learning community (Hord, 1997).
62
Each teacher interviewed at Robinson Middle seemed to be very supportive
of their school principal, Mike Thomas, who has led them into developing
collaborative teams that engage in reflective thinking and shared practices. The
teachers indicated that at one time the site administrator was the assistant principal at
Robinson Middle and then was assigned as a principal at an elementary school in
Blue Valley Unified. When an opening occurred at Robinson Middle for a new site
principal, the teachers indicated that they expressed their interest in having the
former assistant principal return as principal, which he did. The teachers stated that
the site administrator brought the idea of implementing PLCs when he returned to
Robinson Middle as principal four years ago. Mr. Thomas confirmed that he was the
assistant principal for two years when Robinson Middle first opened in 1999. He
then left for three years to be a principal at another school site. Mrs. Babayan, the
ELD and AVID teacher recalled Mr. Thomas’ first meeting, as acting principal, with
the staff. “He had a meeting with all of the teachers before he started and said, ‘You
know, we are going to do collaboration at the school. That is non-negotiable.’ So,
whatever form that was going to take, we did not know but knew that this was an
expectation that he was giving the whole staff before he came in. It kind of set the
tone and people knew that there was going to be changes.” It was clear, according to
these teachers that Mr. Thomas did act as that “guiding hand” during the
implementation of the PLC at Robinson Middle. Mrs. Turner stated the idea of a
PLC has “been a work in progress since Mr. Thomas returned to Robinson Middle to
be the principal and continues to be a work in progress.”
63
One teacher, Jack Baker, who is currently the President of the Teacher’s
Union, expressed that the working relationship with the site principal and teachers
has been very supportive and positive. The President of the Union indicated that the
site administrator knew that to implement PLCs at Robinson he would have to, at
first, introduce the idea to the staff in order for them to take eventual ownership. The
concept of a PLC was first introduced at a staff meeting. Mr. Baker stated that Mr.
Thomas felt that “if the staff did not want to go in a certain direction, there is no
point in attempting it.” The staff sensed that the current administrator was not going
to hurry the staff in the implementation of PLCs and that his interest in the staff
taking ownership of implementation was genuine. The site administrator’s
philosophy of implementation concurs with Dufour et al. (1998) in that the past role
of the principal was usually assertive and forceful, while the more current view of a
principal is one that can work collaboratively with others allowing for the
development of a culture of collaboration. This definitely exemplifies Mr. Thomas
in that his intent was to work collaboratively with the staff, even from the very
beginning.
This respect for the staff’s input and sense of collaboration between the site
administrator and school staff laid the foundation for the implementation of PLCs at
Robinson Middle. Even though the concept of PLCs seemed confusing to Mrs.
Henry in the beginning, it was made clear to her over time. It evolved slowly.
According to Mrs. Henry, sixth grade social studies and language arts core teacher,
the principal acted as a “guiding light” in implementing PLCs while he always
64
showed support and was sensitive to the needs of every department. Mrs. Paulsen, a
sixth grade science teacher, agreed with Mrs. Henry when she stated that the idea of
PLCs “kept progressing slowly by adding another step to it through the years. And
sometimes, it was our decision whether to move on or not. So, I liked the way Mr.
Thomas introduced it. Otherwise, I think it might have been overwhelming for
some.”
Getting a PLC Started
Once the staff took ownership of implementing PLCs at Robinson Middle,
Mr.Thomas stated that he felt as though collaboration should not take place after
school hours. He felt as though that collaboration time should be built into the
school calendar. In order for learning communities to function productively, the
conditions of the people involved must be conducive to meeting as collaborative
teams, including having time to collaborate (Boyd, 1992; Louis & Kruse, 1995).
Therefore, the staff at Robinson Middle, as mandated by the collective bargaining
agreement, voted to have late start Wednesdays in order to have collaboration time
every week. Mr. Baker stated that he felt as though the first year of implementation
went very well and that he felt as though it was the first time in the thirty-five year
history of his teaching experience that he felt like he has had the time to collaborate.
Table 4 (Robinson Middle Bell Schedule, January 26, 2008) shows Robinson
Middle’s school schedule, which allows time for PLC meetings during on the late
start Wednesday schedule.
65
Table 4: Robinson Middle Bell Schedule
Regular Bell Schedule Late Start Wednesday Schedule
Period 1 7:50 – 8:39 Period 1 8:55 – 9:33
Period 2 8:43 – 9:29 Period 2 9:37 – 10:14
Period 3 9:47 – 10:33 Period 3 10:37 – 11:09
Period 4 10:37 – 11:23 Period 4 11:13 – 11:50
Period 5 11:27 – 12:13 Lunch 11:50 – 12:26
Lunch 12:13 – 12:44 Period 5 12:30 – 1:07
Period 6 12:53 – 1:39 Period 6 1:11 – 1:48
Period 7 1:43 – 2:29 Period 7 1:52 – 2:29

Mrs. Henry pointed out that even students noticed that teachers were
collaborating and could see the difference in the school and that it appeared more
cohesive. The student body president mentioned to Mrs. Henry, “Mrs. Henry, you
know you are collaborating a lot more with teachers, are you not?” This statement
demonstrated that it was even apparent to the student body president that there was
consistency in instructional practices throughout his classes. Mrs. Henry believed
that this consistency in instruction has come as a result of teams being able to
collaborate on a weekly basis.
Mr. Baker pointed out that Mr. Thomas was aware that late start Wednesdays
may not always allow enough time for collaboration, so Mr. Thomas provided
substitutes to release teachers for additional collaboration time, as well. Mrs.
66
Babayan stated that “it was early on that the staff thought it needed to get together if
the teams were to work on pacing essential standards. So, the staff voted on a
contract waiver to implement a modified day. It also came up, and it always comes
up, that if your team needs a day for substitutes to cover your classes, Mike will
provide the coverage so that teams can meet.” Mrs. Babayan continued to say that
often teams do take advantage of that opportunity, including herself.
As the PLCs began to meet, Mr. Baker stated that Mr. Thomas didn’t expect
the teams “to just go and wander aimlessly.” Mr. Thomas, with the school’s
leadership team created a vision, modeled reflective inquiry, and saught out ways to
empower teachers to be leaders. A focus was created in order to give the PLCs at
Robinson Middle direction. Mr. Thomas stated that in order to implement a PLC
environment it was necessary to start by first defining Robinson Middle’s mission.
He stated that the staff’s eventual conclusion was that their mission was learning and
that the goal of every PLC was to assure that every student was academically
successful. Mrs. Sportsman stated that she thought one of the reasons her team
worked so well together was that the team shared the same philosophy. She shared
that “when Mike came to the school he had this whole way of writing mission
statements that was completely different than everybody else’s. We live our mission
statement, and we all believe in our mission statement.”
Mr. Thomas described the first staff meeting in which he discussed defining
the school’s mission statement. He mentioned that the staff started rolling their eyes
back into their heads at which he responded by saying, “So, you seem to not want to
67
talk about this. Okay, then turn your agenda over and just do me a favor. Just jot
down our mission statement.” Mr. Thomas smiled a bit and explained to me that the
staff just looked at each other and asked if it had to be word-by-word. At that point,
the staff realized that no one really knew what the mission statement was. He
explained to the staff that if the school was going to be comprised of PLCs working
together towards a common goal, then it would be necessary to be in agreement
about even why the PLC existed, why students come to us, and why we go to work
everyday. Mr. Thomas let the staff know that he had one non-negotiable and that
was that the school would be a team and that the team would work together toward
their goals. At that point, the staff collectively created and agreed upon a mission
statement, “Maximizing every student’s academic potential and personal
responsibility.”
Mr. Thomas believed that the mission statement is extremely important, “the
bottom line to everything done and the collective commitment that leads us to
student improvement.” Mr. Thomas emphasized that looking at the research was so
vital. The research emphasizes that when students are learning, the question becomes
how do we improve (DuFour et al., 2006). Sharing vision is not just agreeing with a
good idea; it is a particular mental image of what is important to an individual and to
an organization. Staff is encouraged not only to be involved in the process of
developing a shared vision but to use that vision as a guidepost in making decisions
about teaching and learning in the school (Hord, 1997).
68
Developing a Professional Learning Community
According to McLaughlin et al. (2006) and DuFour et al. (2006), there are
developmental stages of PLCs. From the interviews at Robinson Middle, it was
apparent that the school’s collaborative teams were no longer at the novice level of
development, and there was indication that the teams had advanced into the
advanced stages in which the PLC is able to sustain itself. It is in the advanced stage
that the PLCs embrace the idea of building a culture of collaboration and use it for
reflecting on instructional practices in order to increase student achievement.
The teacher interviews gave various perspectives on PLCs. Most
perspectives were from the present state of the PLC in which they were involved
with some reflection on its growth over a four-year period. Again, all teachers spoke
highly of the principal, his assistance in helping each team transition from one stage
to another, and expressed a sense of ownership in the PLCs. Ms. Sportsman, an art
teacher and member of the art, music, and home economics PLC team, shared that
the implementation of PLCs was an ongoing process and that it started out very
slowly by just creating simple goals for the team and how her team would share
practices, sustain academic improvement, and set norms for team meetings. Mr.
Robert, seventh and eight grade science teacher, stated that the focus of his team’s
collaboration time focused heavily on the pacing of the science curriculum, aligning
that to the science standards, and looking at science assessment data. He further
stated that one of the benefits of PLCs was “the ability of the staff to get together and
figure out how best to make sure all the kids get the same education.” Mrs. Henry, a
69
sixth grade English language arts and social studies teacher, expressed that for the
teachers who have been in education for several years felt as though the
implementation of PLCs was somewhat threatening, as though you were being
watched and told what to do. She made reference to the fact that Mr. Thomas helped
the veteran teachers to work through those feelings. She mentioned that now it was
just a part of what she does. PLCs have become so much a part of the school culture
that she stated that “it is hard to think back at the time where I did not meet with my
team weekly, and discuss what was going on and what is happening with kids.”
Mr. Thomas believes that in the schools fourth year as a PLC, that they were
just now doing the work of a PLC as though it were a common routine in the day-to-
day events of the school. For example, there was no longer a need to convince the
staff that there was a need for common assessments. The staff realized that there
were essential standards that each team had to identify for all students to master. He
believed that the staff understood that if there were common essential standards
throughout the school, then there was a need for common assessments. At first, Mr.
Thomas explained that he had to initially convince staff to give common assessments
but even with that, the staff did not analyze the data or reflect on instructional
practices that might need to be changed. However, currently, more team decisions
are data driven and more team actions are based on collective decision making
compared to individual decision making. In reference to PLCs, Mr. Thomas stated,
“We focus more on just doing it and being it.”
70
During the beginning stages of PLC development, teacher teams developed
set norms (McLaughlin et al., 2006). Mr. Thomas cited that the staff agreed to have
norms for their team meetings. Mr. Thomas emphasized that he did not dictate this,
but the staff looked at the research on norms and the staff collectively agreed to
establish norms that would be read at the beginning of each team meeting and again
at the end of each meeting for reflection. The site administrator holds them
accountable for their norms. Mr. Thomas, again, emphasized that he keeps teachers
“on task” to what the staff has collectively agreed to do.
Shared leadership is a vital part of creating a PLC. During the intermediate
and advanced stages of development, teachers’ leadership roles broaden and a sense
of ownership of reform work is established (McLaughlin et al., 2006). As the PLC
teams at Robinson Middle have developed over the past years, each year the teams
have learned to collaborate on the focus of the team, set goals for the students, and
decide what the students’ outcomes should look like. Teachers agree by department
what every student should learn and created common assessments based on the
essential standards in every content area. There is an obvious sense of ownership
and empowerment in the PLC reform work.
Mr. Thomas shared Robinson Middle’s 2007 – 2008 Learning Notebook
which all staff members have a copy of. The notebook contains agreed on School-
Wide SMART Goals, Team Norms, Team SMART Goals, and Course Essential
Standards. All previously stated items were agreed upon by the PLC team and
turned into Mr. Thomas by a specified due date as spelled out on the front cover of
71
the Learning Notebook. In order to monitor the PLC teams at Robinson Middle and
to provide the necessary guidance to PLC teams by keeping them on task, the first
line of the cover page states the following, “To achieve our school mission, we agree
to be ‘tight’ about the following team outcomes.” For example, the sixth grade team
collectively agreed on the following norms and as specified in the Learning
Notebook submitted them to Mr. Thomas by September 26
th
, 2007:
• Be respectful of team member’s opinions.
• Be open to new ideas
• Have a willingness to collaborate.
• Be professional at all times.
• Share responsibility.
• Come prepared to meetings.
• Be on time and on task.
• Be productive members of the team.
In comparison, the seventh grade team meeting norms are listed below to
exemplify how each team agrees collectively on its own set of PLC norms.
• Begin and end on time (7:30 to 8:15 AM or the first 20 minutes of fifth
period prep.)
• Prepare for meetings; focus on the agenda.
• Agree to share ideas.
• Be respectful of others’ opinions.
• Respect confidentiality.
72
• Keep meetings positive and professional.
• Speak kindly and honestly.
• Come with potential suggestions and solutions.
• Celebrate our hard work: Eat lunch together at least bi-weekly.
Mr. Thomas stated that in order to implement a sense of teacher
empowerment in order to complete the reform work within the school, the site
administrator has “to have a simultaneous tight and loose leadership.” Often, a
principal will go wrong if he/she is too tight or too loose. Mr. Thomas believes that
principals either say “go collaborate and give no guidance” or they dictate to teams
every task. Robinson Middle seems to have found a good balance between teacher
empowerment and administrator guidance. Robinson’s principal has made it clear
which type of decisions stay with the site principal while also encouraging teacher
accountability, shared practices, and reflective inquiry (McLaughlin et al. 2006).
Sustainability
Mr. Thomas mentioned that he has been able to sustain PLCs at Robinson
due to the fact that his staff sees that it works. He stated, “If what we were trying to
do did not work, I do not think anyone would have said, ‘Let’s do it some more.’” It
seems that from every measure, according to Mr. Thomas, that PLCs are working at
Robinson Middle which has empowered the staff to continue the work. The staff,
when interviewed, often used Robinson’s API scores as evidence of their success as
a PLC. Ms. Sportsman, the art and yearbook teacher, believed that one piece of
evidence of being able to sustain successfully PLCs at Robinson was Robinson
73
Middle’s California Standards Test 2007 in which the school received a 923 API
score. Ms. Sportsman showed a great deal of pride in Robinson’s API score by
stating “we got a 923, choke on that.” She also stated that the school celebrated their
success with a celebration party which consisted of a dance, a celebration assembly,
and lunch. When her peers from outside schools questioned the use of instructional
minutes that were replaced by an all day celebration, Ms. Sportsman stated, “We use
our instructional time wisely. We do not waste our instructional time. We use it
wisely, and the kids deserve it.”
From 2004 – 2007, there is evidence that the school has made significant
growth. In the table below, API growth can be seen for each subgroup, except for the
Hispanic / Latino population from 2006 to 2007. Even though never referred to
during he interviews, the Hispanic / Latino subgroup became a significant subgroup
in 2006 and is the only subgroup that declined in their API score. However, district
wide, the Hispanic / Latino population increased their API score by ten points
(California Department of Education, Accountability Progress Reporting, 2007).

Table 5: Robinson Middle’s API Scores 2004 – 2007
2004 2005 2006 2007
Schoolwide 866 883 917 923
Asian 911 921 950 956
Hispanic / Latino 828 824
White 860 885 909 918

74
The Robinson staff felt as though collective sharing and decision making
have been factors leading to improved student achievement. Even though Robinson
Middle has had significant success since the implementation of PLCs at the school
site, Mr. Thomas mentioned that there were teachers in the beginning of the
implementation that believed it was there job to teach and that it was the student’s
job to learn. The traditional cultural norms had to be dealt with in the beginning.
When interviewing Mrs. Henry, she recalled that in the beginning that there were
members on her team who were not in favor of implementing PLCs at the school site
and that often team members would not participate in collective sharing or decision
making, however, over time the team began to work together with individual team
members taking responsibility for their part, which also became an expectation
written in their team norms. Mrs. Henry emphasized that holding everyone to the
team norms, which emphasizes active participation from every member, has helped
to sustain the PLC concept over the past four years.
According to the principal, sustaining PLCs over time has also been difficult
while also keeping a focus on the work of PLCs with the additional mandates and
dictates from the district level which often does not match the work done at
Robinson Middle. Mr. Thomas mentioned that “the other struggle that we constantly
deal with is to keep ourselves focused on what we know works and not let other
things divide us from that.” 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
75
that all students have access to a common curriculum (Marzano, 2003). Schools must
also give teachers time to analyze and discuss state and district curriculum
documents. In an additional comment that Mr. Thomas made, he stated that teacher
conversations must quickly move beyond "what are we expected to teach?" to "how
will we know when each student has learned?"
In summary, Mr. Thomas is a school leader who has led his school site in
developing and implementing professional learning communities. He has
maintained a loose and tight leadership as he has monitored the PLC teams working
collaboratively toward improving student achievement. From the implementation of
PLCs four years ago, he has encouraged and allowed teams to engage in collective
decision making in developing team norms, selecting eight to ten essential standards
to focus on each semester, and developing SMART goals as benchmarks reflecting
the number of students performing at proficient or advanced levels. He has
maintained a tight control by monitoring the teams, ensuring that all team members
follow team norms and each staff member take an active part in all team meetings as
they reflect to improve student academic performance. Each PLC team, at Robinson
Middle, has transitioned from one developmental stage of reflective inquiry to
another with the assistance of Mr. Thomas to the point that now the PLC teams
analyze data, reflect on instructional practices, and plan interventions as though it
were a common routine. Sustainability of the PLCs over the past four years is the
result of visible gained improvements and the expectation in every team norm that all
76
Robinson staff members be active members in their professional learning community
sharing and reflecting collectively.
Benefits of Working in Professional Learning Communities

“Change is a process through which people and organizations move as they
gradually come to understand, and become competent in the use of new ways” (Hall
& Hord, 2001, p. 4). People may need a bridge, such as, coaching, mentoring, or
administrative support, to transfer their learning from the training setting to the
application setting or to move from one developmental stage to the next (Paine,
2008). PLCs provide for supportive learning communities where they may
collaborate and engage in dialogue with colleagues and other professionals.
Professional learning communities create opportunities for dialogue which also make
it safe to ask questions and work in a community. Recognizing and understanding
tensions in collaboration and dialogue and their ability to prevent fully engaging
collective inquiry is vital as reluctant teachers hinder PLC work or new teachers to a
school site step onto a high learning curve to become active members of an already
existing PLC (Snow-Gerono, 2005). Both issues existed at Robinson Middle. There
were reluctant teachers due to various reasons and new teachers who entered into
either a “sink or swim” situation without staff development or training in how PLCs
function.
Building a Culture of Collaboration
Mr. Thomas learned from past mistakes how to bridge the gap between new
staff members who had ownership in PLCs and new staff members who did not. Mr.
77
Thomas stated that two years ago, he had nine new staff members come and he
assumed that they would see what had been done at Robinson Middle in terms of
PLCs. “The mistake I made was everyone has to own the mission and the purpose.
If new people do not get to a vote in what happens, then they do not own it, they are
told it.” He continued to share that last year five new staff members joined the
Robinson staff. Instead, they started last year with new staff members by reflecting
and reviewing the mission statement. Mr. Thomas felt as though everyone needed to
recommit themselves to what they were doing. “We very carefully made sure that
every new voice had a chance to have a voice in implementing professional learning
communities,” Mr. Thomas stated as he reflected on how he laid the foundation that
created a reflective, collaborative environment for his entire staff, new and veteran.
A second piece that Mr. Thomas felt was important for new staff members
was making sure they had the tools so they could do the work of the already existing
PLCs. At the beginning of each school year, Mr. Thomas provides staff
development on PLC language and the purpose behind collaborative working
relationships for new staff members. Mr. Thomas stated that “when a new staff
member joins a high functioning team, meaning that team members work
interdependently, a new staff member can’t just walk in and say, ‘I am new. Can
you do the work and I will watch for a while?’” Mr. Thomas believes that the best
way for a new staff member to assimilate into a PLC is to “actually do the work”.
In Table 6, Typical Levels of Use of Innovation, Paine (2008) states that
there are seven levels of innovation which teachers experience when beginning to
78
learn innovative practices. It seems that through trial and error that Mr. Thomas
realized that the assumption that new staff members would automatically adapt and
use PLC practices was faulty and coincides with Paine’s Levels of Innovation which
describes teacher type talk at the different levels.

Table 6: Typical Levels of Use of Innovation (Paine, 2008)

Not using I do not use this strategy.
Learning to use I am just beginning to learn about the strategy and how it’s
supposed to be used.
Low level use I am trying to use the strategy on my own, but I am not very
successful or confident with it yet.
Mechanical use I try to use the strategy the way I think it is supposed to be used.
Routine use I implement the strategy routinely with some success.
Collaborative
use
I collaborate with others to use the strategy well.
Expert use I am very successful with this strategy, and I am comfortable
teaching it to others.

Mr. Baker shared how his team, over the past four years, has gone through
several staffing changes, including losing about half his team to a neighboring high
school. The initial team worked together well, reflected on instructional practices,
and came to agreement on team decisions. However, when new staff members
joined the team, Mr. Baker stated that “you have to go back few steps to bring
79
everybody back up.” New team members merged into a team that was at different
levels of innovation. Unfortunately, the new members who joined the team two years
ago left the school last year. Mr. Baker felt as though that there were solid members
on the team who were further along in the PLC concept, but do to the lack of
consistency in team members there seemed to be a lack of continuity. The lack of
consistency comes from team members being at either the collaborative or expert use
level, as well as team members who may be at the “learning to use” level or “low
level use”. Mr. Baker explained that it was difficult for new members to “buy into”
the PLC concept. But once new members began to live the process of reflecting on
practices and analyzing assessment data, they began to take ownership. Ms.
Sportsman shared that all members of a PLC have to take ownership, perhaps at the
“mechanical use” or higher, and that “if you have any weak links, it really does
show. New members of a team have to catch up quick.”
Ms. Sportsman also shared that her team’s strong sense of communication
has helped her team build a strong culture of collaboration. She stated that “when
we have a meeting, we just get down to business. We have an agenda. We talk
about any kind of updates that needed, coming dates that are important, and concerts.
When we’re done with the meeting, we always check to see what we’ve covered,
making sure nothing was left out.”
Mrs. Henry’s experience with new team members and its effect on the team
differed from Mr. Baker. Mrs. Henry shared that she was the original member on
her team. “I am the original Robinson, they call us because I have been here since
80
year one,” Mrs. Henry said. She also shared that she has only worked one other
member of the team for past three to four years. However, even with the transitions
of one new team member or another, Mrs. Henry believes that due to the clear
expectation of the team, new team members transition easily onto the team. Mrs.
Henry shared that her team reviews norms and expectations with new team members.
She felt that the clear expectations eased the way for new team members. “As a new
team member, they know where we are going, where we are heading. And, I think
that will make them feel like they are part of the team immediately.”
Mrs. Turner’s team took an unique approach to building collaboration unlike
other Robinson Middle teams. She shared that they “have two team shirts which
sounds very minor but it helps to unite the team and build a sense of community.
We went together as a team during one of our lunches to buy the shirts and people
were noticing and saying, ‘Wow, you all are buying the same shirt.’” Mrs. Turner
shared how her team cares for one another genuinely. She stated that “as a team
leader, I make it a point to make sure that there is care among each other and that we
are aware of each other.” Mrs. Turner felt as though the team norms also have
helped to build collaboration due to the stated expectations of the team for
engagement and behavior.
Mrs. Babayan was the only ELD instructor on campus and taught a
combination of sixth, seventh, and eighth social studies, language arts, and reading.
Her ELD class was referred to as Newcomers Class of level one and two EL
students. Mrs. Babayan’s position has isolated her to some degree in terms of being
81
a part of a PLC. Mrs. Babayan shared that she has been a team of one but still finds
a way to collaborate with both science and the other core courses, comprised of
social studies and language arts. Mrs. Babayan had a difficult time talking about
being a part of any one team that collaborates effectively with a strong sense of
collaboration. Mrs. Babayan stated, “I go to different team meetings, so they have
different topics that they talk about, and I just like dog tail in when it’s appropriate or
if I happen to be there. It is so different for me because I do not have that continuity
of being a part of one team.” When questioning Mrs. Babayan, she did believe that
she offers vital information to teams that help teachers assist EL students. When
teachers use instructional strategies for EL students, Mrs. Babayan believed that the
students then sensed that Robinson teachers were collaborating. Mrs. Babayan
shared with her students that because she does attend the team meetings, she lets
students know that she’s aware of what’s being taught in their science, math, and
elective classes. Even though Mrs. Babayan has not been a part of any one PLC in
particular, her active participation in various teams has allowed her to share and
receive information that is important to the students’ academic success. The culture
of collaboration that Robinson has created allows for all teachers to participate,
regardless of subject taught.
Mrs. Paulsen shared that her science team never had an issue with
collaboration. She stated that she has been a member of a team of three science
teachers. The information that Mrs. Paulsen shared indicated that there has been
strong evidence of teacher collaboration. This science team has been sharing the
82
same assessments and science labs. According to Mrs. Paulsen, “You can walk to
one of any of our three classes and they all look pretty much the same.” The reason
for this continuity was due to her team pacing out the year. The team decided on the
essential standards being taught each semester. Of course, there was also follow
through to check pacing and solve any day to day issues that might surface during
the weekly team meetings.
It is clear that Robinson Middle has strong leadership which has provided a
guide to PLC implementation and teacher success. School leadership and the teacher
role in the implementation of PLCS are interdependent. Change is a team effort.
Teachers also play important roles in the change process. “Teachers play a critical
leadership role in whether or not change is successful. Teachers and site principals
are in this phenomenon together, and all must help to facilitate the change process
(Hall et al., 2001, p. 15).” There seems to be strong evidence that Robinson Middle
teachers have played a large part in the school’s apparent success in implementing
PLCs. As the PLC teams have worked to become collaborative, they have also met
opposition from team members who preferred to work in isolation or believed that
their current practices were not open for change. Robinson Middle also has teachers
that do work in isolation due to the nature of their content area, such as being the
only ELD teacher, Home Economics teacher, or Art teacher. They are challenged to
often reflect and share in ways that are not typical for most PLC teams.
83
Working in Isolation
Professional learning communities are teams of teachers who work together
to improve their professional learning and integrate research-based practices into
their classrooms. Teams can consist of teachers from the same grade level or
discipline, or they can provide opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration and
work across grade levels, such as at Robinson Middle School. Professional learning
communities provide the kind of professional development that research shows is
most effective: ongoing, collaborative, and responsive to the unique needs of
individual schools and teachers (Teacher Leaders Network, 2008). However, teams
do not always operate in this idealistic fashion. Teams are not always responsive to
shared practices. One of the first characteristics of individuals in a productive
learning community is a willingness to accept feedback and work toward
improvement. In addition, the following characteristics are needed: respect and trust
among colleagues at the school and district level, possession of an appropriate
cognitive and skill base that enables effective teaching and learning, supportive
leadership from administrators and others in key roles, and relatively intensive
socialization processes (Hord, 1997).
Relationships among educators within a school range from healthy to
competitive. Strengthen those relationships, and you improve professional practice.
The nature of relationships among the adults within a school has a greater influence
on the character and quality of that school and on student accomplishment than
anything else. If the relationships between administrators and teachers are trusting,
84
generous, helpful, and cooperative, then the relationships between teachers and
students, between students and students, and between teachers and parents are likely
to be trusting, generous, helpful, and cooperative. If, on the other hand, relationships
between administrators and teachers are fearful, competitive, suspicious, and
corrosive, then these qualities will disseminate throughout the school community
(Barth, 2006).
Understanding the need to build a trusting relationship between staff and
principal while encouraging teams to be collaborative, Mr. Thomas shared that he
felt it was very important to build consensus among the school, as was done when
Robinson’s mission statement was created. It is important that everyone has the
opportunity to share their opinions. From this open sharing, the “will of the group
will emerge.” Mr. Thomas stated that once the mission statement was written
collectively and teams had set their norms, he would not “let one person hold the
team hostage.” Mr. Thomas expects every staff member to abide the collectively
agreed upon norms and any decision made by staff. Mr. Thomas is apparently a
strong school leader who believes strongly in a culture of collaboration and shared
decision making and that no staff member will interfere or be allowed to upset a
team or school decision. Working in isolation or interfering with team collective
practices is not acceptable. This is strongly evident in the following statement made
by Mr. Thomas:
I would do everything in my power to support someone who was not engaged
properly in the work. But, you do not get a chance to opt out, and you do not
get a chance to be destructive or less than professional and not follow norms.
85
If that happened, I would use everything at my disposal including my power
of my office to change those behaviors. I cannot change someone’s attitude,
but I can change someone’s behavior. You might not love kids, but you
better act like you like the team because that it what we stand for. If not,
either go somewhere else or get with the program. It was not like you did not
get a say in all of this. You got a say, but your say did not win.

In terms of being resistant to working collaboratively, Mrs. Paulsen shared
that in the beginning of PLC implementation that there was a teammate who was
resistant to collaborating on the team. The resistant staff member believed her
teaching style was better than Mrs. Paulsen, and in turn, Mrs. Paulsen thought her
teaching style was better than the resistant staff member. The team began to work
more collectively when the Robinson staff agreed to use the same assessments, based
on the essential standards, by grade level and content area. Mrs. Paulsen
remembered the staff discussing common assessments and then agreeing collectively
that this would be done schoolwide. The team understood that they had the
opportunity to voice their opinion on common assessments and then agree to use
them. That agreement closed the door to opposition.
During Mr. Robert’s four years at Robinson, he has had the good fortune to
work on a team that does not, in Mr. Robert’s words, “butt heads”. This was partly
due to being on a two member team. Mr. Robert shared that the science team works
collectively, grades six to eight, time is spent on interventions for low performing
students since the content differs widely from sixth to eighth grade. Also, when the
entire team meets, there is also a focus of what is needed for one grade level to teach
students in order to prepare them for the next. According to Mr. Robert, “We do not
86
disagree on anything, so it is just really a natural progression for use to continue
building on each others’ teaching.” Mr. Robert did not mention whether the
professional collaboration of his team was due to the positive relationship between
the principal and staff, as research indicates is an outcome (Hord, 1997). However,
from the general mood of the teachers interviewed and the positive tone felt toward
the site principal, there was good indication that the shared decision making of Mr.
Robert’s team could possibly be an outcome of Mr. Thomas’ support.
When I questioned Mr. Baker about whether or not there were members on
his team who preferred to work in isolation, he said that “we have personalities who
buy into the idea of PLCs but prefer to be more by themselves.” The good thing,
according to Mr. Baker, was that the entire team did agree on content standards to be
taught, and they do analyze assessments together. No one on the team is resistant to
work collaboratively. In reference to the one team member, Mr. Baker commented,
“It was just a type of personality, more of just a quiet person that likes to work
individually. It is just her personality. She does what is necessary to be a part of the
team. She is just a little quieter.”
Mrs. Sportsman has been working with a very unusual team. When asked if
there were any resistors on her team, she said, “We are all working in isolation.”
This is due to her team being composed of art, home economics, music, and band
teachers. She stated that even though her team works in isolation, they “are not
afraid to ask each other for help. We are there to support each other. I don’t see any
of us like drawn to working in isolation.”
87
Mrs. Henry shared that members working in isolation on her team hasn’t
been an issue, but the issue has been team members sometimes wanting the
collective decision making “to go all their way,” making it individual decision
making and not collective. Sometimes, the resistant teacher’s attitude was “do not
fix it if it is not broke.” Mrs. Henry believed that the many years of teaching
experience was an obstacle for this teacher resistor. Mrs. Henry stated that “she did
not even open a plan book because she knew exactly from day to day what was
going on. And, she did not like to anything to upset what she had been doing for
many years.” Mrs. Henry suggested that this team member was not willing to look at
doing things differently. When asked how her team solved this issue, she shared that
this one teacher left the school. Mrs. Henry shared that there was one other team
member that tended to want the team to do everything for her. However, this one
teacher has become a more productive member of the team. Mrs. Henry then made a
comment which corroborated with Mr. Thomas’ belief that working as a collective
team is not an option. Mrs. Henry mentioned that “Mr. Thomas is really good at
working with reluctant staff members.” Mrs. Henry was happy that now her team
works well together. According to her, “I think all the wrinkles have been kind of
ironed out and I think the definition of collaboration has become clearer for
everyone.”
Mrs. Turner mentioned that there are staff members on her team that have
been very independent. She feels as though it has been due to these staff members
coming from the business world where it is very competitive. According to Mrs.
88
Turner, team norms have helped to build a culture of collaboration on her team. She
also believes that having a vision and mission statement has helped to bond the team
to together.
From the teacher interviews, it was apparent that Robinson Middle teachers
saw varied reasons for teachers working in isolation, including teachers being
independent, not wanting to change past teaching practices, and being a part of a
team with different content areas. However, there was strong indication that the
school’s mission, vision, and team norms created cohesive, collaborative teams in
which collective decision making was evident. As indicated by McLaughlin et al.
(2006), reluctance to collaborate usually disappears as teams develop from one stage
to another. It is clear that Robinson Middle’s PLC teams have gone from creating
team norms in the beginning stage of PLC implementation to the advanced stage
when teams focus on improved practices and accountability. They are challenged by
one member teams or a team in which everyone teaches a different subject area.
However, even with those challenges, that single member team and the eclectic team
of different content areas, collaborate with one another using commonalities that
benefit every Robinson PLC.
Using Data to Change Classroom Practices
In the professional learning community, teachers begin to meet in core teams
to determine which standards should be given priority, and then develop common
assessments to check for understanding of those key standards. This process is aided
by the fact that the standards have already been defined by the state. This process of
89
collaboration allows teachers to look at longitudinal data relative to student success
or not at both the school wide and common assessment level. While looking at
student success or students who did master an essential standard, collaborative teams
share lessons and best practices which have demonstrated success for students
(Buffum, 2006). Before teams begin to look at assessment data, teams determine
their SMART (Strategic and Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-Oriented, and
Timebound) Goals, aligned to the essential standards, which shifts the thinking to a
focus on student results (Snow-Guerno, April 2005). In this case study, the
Robinson PLC teams collaborated to create SMART goals and developed common
assessments based on eight to ten essential semester standards. The results of the
assessments led to a reflective discussion on instructional practices and necessary
interventions. While Robinson Middle celebrates their successes, interventions for
students falling behind are planned.
Goal Setting
“Would you tell, please, which way I ought to go from here?” asked Alice.
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where,” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat. (Carroll, 2002, p. 53)
The quote from Alice in Wonderland figuratively relates a message that with
an end in mind or a goal in place, a plan is then put in place in order to accomplish
that goal. Without a goal, the plan then becomes a wandering journey. Goals help
90
guide PLCs to a desired outcome and purpose when assessing data (Datnow et al.,
2007).
“Results-oriented goals are essential to effective teams. The capacity of
teams to achieve their goals improves dramatically when members have access to
feedback that informs their individual practice – feedback that helps them discover
what is working and what is not working in their instructional strategies (DuFour et
al., 2006, p. 147).” The collaborative teams at Robinson Middle set goals each year
that reflect on their students’ current areas of strengths and weaknesses. Robinson’s
“Team SMART Goal-Setting Plan” also provides actions steps, time frame, and how
the goal will be measured. Even though there seemed to be a template for teams to
follow for their Goal-Setting Plan, not all teams used the detailed template.
According to the The Robinson Team 2007-2008 Notebook, it was collectively
agreed that all Robinson teams would submit a SMART goal for the year by October
17
th
, 2007 which would be tied to eight or ten essential standards and that team
members would be accountable for achieving the goal.
Mr. Thomas shared that he sits down with every team at the beginning of the
year to review each team’s goals. SMART goals are looked at collectively
throughout the year to assess whether the team is reaching its SMART goal or not.
“You are not a team, if you do not have a goal,” Mr. Thomas stated. Mr. Thomas
shared that the math department chose solving equations as their overarching goal
for every math class. He continued to share that for language arts, writing is usually
the focus of the SMART goal and that it is measured by the district writing test.
91
Below is an example of the Math Department’s Goal-Setting Plan, using the detailed
template that some teams did use:

Table 7: Math Team SMART Goal-Setting Plan

Team / Department: Math Department
What is our team’s current reality? (Areas of strength and potential areas of focus)
• Simplifying expressions
• Fractions and decimals
• Mathematical reasoning (problem solving / word problems)
• Solving equations

Based upon our current reality, we have identified the following area of focus to improve
student learning …
• Solving equations

We have collectively created the following SMART goal(s) to address the area of focus:
• All students will be able to solve grade level appropriate equations (containing integers) by
the end of the school year with 80% accuracy, which will be measured by common
assessments.

To achieve this goal …

Action Steps: What steps will or activities will be initiated to achieve this goal?
• Collaborative planning
• Grade level common assessments that measures this specific skill
• Analysis and discussion of results

Designation: Who will be responsible?
• All teachers
• All students

Time Frame: What is a realistic time frame for each step/activity?
• Will be identified at each grade level as deemed appropriate.
Outcomes / Evidence: What outcomes on student learning do we expect? What evidence will
we have to show that we are making progress?

• We expect that students will be able to solve grade level appropriate equations by the end of
the school year. This will be measured through the use of common assessments. Ultimately
the goal is to better prepare students for the next grade level.

92
The sixth grade core team, including social studies and language arts, did not
use a defined template and wrote their SMART goal as follows with included action
steps, designation of responsibility, time frame, and outcomes with evidence but did
not include the sixth grade students’ strengths or areas of focus. There is no
indication that the goal is tied to area of overall needed improvement, as is indicated
in the math department’s goal. Mrs. Henry, a sixth grade core teacher, explained that
the sixth grade team selected eight to ten essential standards in each subject area that
students need to know and that it is for those essential standards that common
assessments are written. A goal is then created, and in the case of the sixth grade
core team, the sixth grade language arts and social studies staff have set a goal that
students need to reach mastery with 80% mastery of the essential standards.
Interestingly, as seen below, the sixth grade core SMART goal does specify that all
students will master the goal with 80% mastery.

Table 8: Sixth Grade Core SMART Goal

SMART Goal: All sixth grade students will be able to write a coherent thesis statement and prove it
throughout a multiple paragraph essay.

Action Steps: In class instruction and modeling using HOLT and other strategies. Team will use
agreed upon prompts and rubrics for each of the writing areas.

Designation: All team members presented information and ideas to set an implement the goal.

Time Frame: District designated time frame for each of the writing genre.

Outcomes / Evidence: We are looking for 80% accuracy. Assessment will be standards based.
Students that need reteaching will be identified by the standard area.

93
The seventh grade Core team and science department submitted SMART
goals to the school’s Learning Notebook that included goals only, with no or very
little supporting information that indicated how the goal would be accomplished.
The team included vague information on how their goals would be accomplished or
over what time period this would be done. Again, it is unclear as to whether the
goals were tied to an overall need as determined by assessment data. Below is the
information that the seventh grade core team and science department submitted to
the Learning Notebook. The disparity between the information that was submitted
by the teams is somewhat surprising and leads me to wonder and to question why,
especially when the site principal stated that he sits down with the teams to review
their goals at the beginning of the year. The expectation for what goals should be
seems confusing.
According to the Learning Notebook, team SMART goals were due in
October, however, Mrs. Anderson, a seventh grade core teacher, indicated that her
team was sill revising the semester goal in November. When questioned what her
team’s SMART goal was, she stated, “Okay, I don’t remember what it is because we
are still revising it. However, it has to do with reading comprehension. I think the
goal was 70% or something like that. We wrote a SMART goal for social studies,
too.” At the time of the site interviews, Mr. Thomas gave me the SMART goals that
teams had created at that point. The specific seventh grade core goal is written
below:
94
Table 9: Seventh Grade Core SMART Goal

SMART 7
th
Grade Core Goal: All students will score at least 75% on the Holt
Literature and Language Arts quarterly assessment in the areas of reading
comprehension, vocabulary, language conventions, and writing. By third quarter, all
students in Core 7 will effectively demonstrate, in writing (based on a four point
rubric), the ability to compare and contrast Medieval Europe with Medieval Europe.

When a seventh and eighth science teacher, Mr. Robert, was asked about
creating SMART goals, the teacher responded, “Goals for individual students or for
a whole group of students? And more specifically, what do you mean by goals?”
After clarifying the question, the science teacher continued by saying, “The science
department does not like to set a number for how many students will master a
standard. We just want to say that every kid is going to do well as they can and we
try to get every kid to continuously improve.” The response does not mirror the
science department SMART goal that is in the Learning Notebook. Mrs. Walker,
another science teacher, brought clarity to how the science department created their
SMART goal.
There are three different grade levels in science and want to come to an
agreement on something that would help all three grade levels. Our SMART
goal is to help them with their vocabulary. We feel that there is a certain
jargon needed for science. We also decided that as far as the number of items
that we were grading or testing should be a gradual increase. So, a sixth
grade will only have so many words, seventh will have more, and more for
eighth grade students.
95
Table 10: Science Team SMART Goal

Science Department SMART Goal: 90% of the students will learn scientific
vocabulary at their grade level with 80% accuracy.

To fulfill this goal we will make the following commitments:

• Matching or multiple choice test
o 25 words 6
th
grade
o 50 words 7
th
grade
o 100 words 8
th
grade
• 1
st
test practice – not graded
• 2
nd
test graded
• Keep taking test until pass
• Flash cards
• Give words and definitions

A team is “a group of people working interdependently to achieve a common
goal for which members are held accountable” (DuFour et al., 2006, p. 126).
Apparently, all of the Robinson Middle teams have created SMART goals which are
defined as to how that goal was determined and how it will be attained in detail by
some teams more than others. Frequent feedback and intermittent reinforcement are
two factors that help sustain the effort essential to achieving challenging goals
(Kouzes & Posner, 1999). The semester goals that the Robinson Middle teams have
created serve as short term benchmarks toward students achieving academic success.
Shorter term goals are better than setting a year long goal that might be only
measured by a state test, for example. Feedback and reinforcement on such a test
only comes once a year which is not sufficient in marking student academic growth
96
(DuFour et al., 2006). Once the goals are planned focusing on the essential
standards, Robinson PLC teams plan their common assessments and pace the year as
to when the assessments will be given. All assessments are aligned to the essential
standards.
Assessments and Interventions
Each Robinson PLC team collectively agrees on the eight to ten essential
standards to be taught each semester. The essential learning is aligned to the CST
(California Standards Test) and district curriculum guides. The essential learning
must ensure students are well prepared to demonstrate proficiency on the CST. The
assessments that the Robinson Middle teams have created or used must provide
timely information on each student’s proficiency so students who are struggling can
be provided with additional time and support for learning. “The assessment must
also be sufficiently precise to ensure the team can ascertain the specific skills in
which a particular student needs help” (DuFour et al., 2006, p. 47). The Robinson
Middle Notebook specifies the following in regards to common assessments: (1)
common assessments will be given to measure student learning of the eight to ten
essential standards; (2) a common assessment does not have to be a test; (3) teams
will collectively discuss and analyze common assessment results; (4) common
assessment results should help to guide team interventions.
For example, the sixth and seventh grade core teachers selected eight
essential standards in language arts and social studies that students would need to
know in order to be proficient on the CST. Each standard also has a common
97
assessment. Below is an example of three of the eight selected standards and the
common assessments the sixth and seventh grade core teams chose to assess student
skills, as determined by the California State Standards.

Table 11: Sixth Grade Core 2007-2008 First Semester Social Studies Essential
Standards

Essential Standard Common
Assessment
HSS 6.1: Students describe what is known through
archaeological studies of the early physical and cultural
development of humankind from the Paleolithic to the
agricultural revolution
Unit 1
Benchmark
Assessment
HSS 6.1.2: Identify the locations of human communities that
populated the major regions of the world and describe how
humans adapted to a variety of environments
Unit 1
Benchmark
Assessment
HSS 6.1.3: Discuss the climatic changes and human
modifications of the physical environment that gave rise to the
domestication of plants and animals and new sources of
clothing and shelter
Unit 1
Benchmark
Assessment

Table 12: Seventh Grade Core 2007-2008 First Semester Language Arts
Essential Standards

Essential Standard Common Assessment
Standard 1.3: Identify parts of speech Holt Handbook chapter
test
Standard 1.2: Identify and use infinitives, participles
and clear pronoun/antecedent references
Holt Handbook
(grammar) chapter test
Standard 1.7: Spell derivatives correctly by applying
the spelling of bases and affixes
Weekly spelling tests
98
Mrs. Anderson, a seventh grade core teacher, shared that her team decided to
do chapter test as the common assessment for certain selected standards. Initially,
quarterly, mid-year, and end of year assessments were used to test students’ mastery
of the essential standards; however, the team felt as though quarterly test were too
infrequent and did not give timely information. For this reason, the team decided to
use chapter or even weekly tests, in the case of the weekly spelling test. She
continued to share that “right now, we can identify, using the common assessments,
which students mastered the essential standard, assuming that all core teachers taught
the same standards. From the data, student interventions can be planned.”
After the seventh grade core team analyzes the assessment data, students are
put into small intervention groups, specifically tailored to the standard that the
students are having difficulty with. Before the intervention begins, the seventh grade
core teachers meet with the students and inform the parents by letter of the needed
intervention. Mrs. Anderson shared that students who are a part of the seventh grade
core team “know where they stand” on each assessment.
In order to greater assist students in mastering content standards, Robinson
Middle staff members created a tutorial program every Tuesday and Thursday for
students to attend. There is a list of forty-seven different groups for students to
choose from. Students have the freedom to choose from the list, unless the student is
behind in a class or needs tutoring in mastering an essential skill. Mr. Robert, a
seventh grade science teacher, assigns students to his tutoring group when they do
not perform at proficient levels on science common assessments. Students who are
99
struggling with content and students who do not pay attention are differentiated.
Students who are not focused and are capable of passing the assessment are handled
in more of a disciplinary fashion, as in relocating the student in the classroom. For
students who need support, he stated that he makes it “mandatory that students attend
tutoring two days a week.” During tutoring, Mr. Robert reviews the content of the
test and then the students take the test again. “Hopefully, it will work out,” Mr.
Robert added.
Mr. Thomas stated that twice a week students have the opportunity to receive
support from staff members. “The students get a chance to engage themselves in
some ownership of how they will give themselves extended time and additional
support to reach a goal,” according to Mr. Thomas. In regard to students learning the
essential standards, Mr. Thomas stated:
Every student is capable of learning. Sometimes you need a little more help
and sometimes you need less help. But, the question is how are you going to
get the help and how are you going to engage yourself to get additional time
and support? We are going to send our students off to high school. Most
high schools do not function as a PLC. It is like sink or swim. We feel like
we need to teach our children to be advocates about their learning, how to
have the metacognition about how they learn and what they need to be able to
learn.

Beside using the twice a week tutorial, the sixth grade core team uses
common assessments to place students in ability-based reading groups but still find it
difficult with pacing to keep students at proficient levels. In order to properly place
students, students are reassessed during the quarter to determine proper placement.
Mrs. Henry, a 6
th
grade core teacher, shared that the team discusses the growth of
100
students and whether or not the students should be moved up or down in a reading
group. She added, “We have also used our language arts quarterly test to make sure
students are meeting the essential standards and identify the students who need to go
back and relearn a standard.” The sixth grade core teachers use the adopted
curriculum’s pre-made assessments for language arts and social studies, but the team
reviews the tests to determine which questions fit the essential standards selected as
the focus that semester.
With the new built-in tutorial program implemented this school year, the
sixth grade core identified students who need extra assistance. The goal for the team
was to analyze the results of the assessments to see which teacher had the greater
success with teaching an essential standard, as determined by the number of students
who were successful in passing that standard with mastery. That teacher who
seemed the most adapt would then reteach that standard during tutoring time to the
students who did not master that essential standard on the common assessment. The
problem that the sixth grade core encountered was time constraints. Mrs. Anderson
questioned this issue by stating, “How do you retest these students on a daily basis
when you know we have so many standards that we have to teach by a certain time?
By the time they master that one standard, the students may have fallen behind in
another.” The other issue is that even though many of these students who need
reteaching are able to attend tutoring twice a week, the scheduled tutoring sessions
are shared by all content area teachers. So, even though a student might benefit from
101
attending a tutoring session in language arts twice a week, that same student might
also need to attend math tutoring.
The sixth grade core sees the results of implementing PLCs at Robinson
Middle. Mrs. Henry shared that she realizes that her data is being examined by her
teammates and site administrator which has motivated her to make sure that her
students are successful in mastering the essential standards that the team selects each
semester. Frequent quizzes are given to assess how her students are doing on almost
a daily basis. She believes that data analysis and reflection on instructional practices
has affected student achievement. Previously, her team noticed that their sixth grade
students generally showed no academic improvement from fifth to sixth grade,
sometimes there was actually a decline in test scores. Last year, the sixth grade team
was not only able to maintain students’ academic growth from fifth grade but see an
increase. Mrs. Henry came from an era, she stated, in which staff members worked
in isolation and “did their own little thing.” Compared to that time, Mrs. Henry said
the difference has been obvious. “The school scores continually increase
schoolwide. It is statistically unusual,” Mrs. Henry added.
Students who are mastering the English language present a different twist to
the picture. Even though no essential standards were included in the Learning
Notebook for EL students, Mrs. Babayan did share that she uses High Point, English
language development curriculum, unit tests to determine student growth in ELD.
She shared that she gives an entry level exam for all of the students to determine
language ability. Weekly assessments are also given to determine how quickly they
102
are developing English skills and to also determine with which skills students are
having difficulty. Mrs. Babayan attends PLC meetings in order to give teachers
information on the needs of specific EL students in their classes. She also assists
teachers with information on instructional strategies that would benefit a student at a
specified language level in the content area classroom.
Mrs. Smith believes that students have a greater sense of what is expected of
them since the implementation of the tutorials. The focus is on students who are not
performing and then there’s a collaborative effort to try to figure out why they are
not performing. Since the implementation of tutorials this year, Mrs. Smith has seen
an increased amount of student work. Art projects are done in a timelier manner. “I
do not have any blank spots in my grade book,” Mrs. Smith proudly shared.
In addition to interviewing staff members at Pioneer Middle, I had the
opportunity to observe two team meetings, the sixth and seventh team core PLC
teams, at which writing assessments were scored and analyzed. Both teams used
common assessments that focused on narrative writing. The seventh grade writing
built upon a sixth grade standard. The sixth grade standard for the writing genre,
according to the Learning Notebook, included the following: Establish and develop
plot and setting, and choose a point of view that is appropriate to stories. Include
sensory details and concrete language to develop plot and character. Use a range of
narrative strategies. The seventh grade writing standard included the following:
Write fictional narratives that a) develop a standard plot line; b) develop major /
minor characters and setting; and 3) use a range of appropriate strategies. In both
103
meetings, the writing prompt and writing rubric were reviewed. Team members, in
both cases, brought papers that exemplified the different levels on the rubric. After a
team consensus on what a four, three, two, or one paper reflected, the team members
began scoring. Each paper was to be scored by two classroom teachers. It was an
expectation for both teams that scores be in agreement, for example, if teacher A
gave student X a four on his/her paper, then teacher B should give the same score. If
scores differed, a third reader than read the paper in order to gain a consensus for that
one student’s score. After the papers were finished, each team analyzed the data. It
was apparent that the seventh grade scores were very strong. By far the majority of
students were at benchmark level or above. The teachers on the seventh grade team
agreed that the use of graphic organizers helped to prepare the students well for the
writing prompt and that the practice prompts also prepared them for the quarterly
writing prompt.
The sixth grade team had a different result. The majority of the students did
not score at benchmark. After analyzing the papers, the teachers noticed numerous
grammar errors. Organization was evident but paragraph development was weak. It
was decided, at that point, that teachers would take the papers and conference with
students. The students would be allowed to edit the papers, develop the paragraphs
more fully after further teaching and the opportunity to attend tutorials for selected
students.
All PLC teams at Robinson use common assessments in order to determine
student growth toward proficiency in the eight to ten selected semester essential
104
standards. As a team, staff members analyze data during team meetings to determine
which students need further intervention or tutoring, as well as determine which
instructional strategies were successful. Beginning this school year, Robinson
Middle implemented a twice a week tutorial program. Students were placed in a
tutorial if they were struggling with an essential standard, as determined by the
common assessments. A possible issue for the tutoring program was the current
curriculum pacing. While some students were being tutored on a standard, the
curriculum continued covering additional standards in which the same students may
also struggle. The other issue was that tutoring is only offered twice a week. This
time is shared by all content area teachers. Even though students may need to have
tutoring twice a week in language arts, that time has to be shared by all content areas,
therefore, splintering the time among all content areas. Besides looking at tutorials to
support students, the PLC teams reflect on best instructional practices to improve
student achievement.
Instructional Strategies
One of the most important factors in student learning is the quality of
teaching they receive (Marzano, 2003). And the “most immediate and direct
influence on teaching expertise is the workplace of the school itself” (Saphier, 2005,
p. 220). Saphier (2005) states that “the reason PLCs increase student learning is that
they produce more good teaching by more teachers more of the time. Put simply,
PLCs improve teaching which improves student results” (p. 23).
105
Collaboration does not only involve looking at student data and planning
interventions but also entails looking at instructional strategies being used so that
students can test at proficient levels on the essential standards. Part of being a part of
a PLC means being able to dialogue about best teaching practices, as well as
observing other classroom teachers using effective instructional practices. Dialogue
also needs to include what current practices are being used and then determining
their effectiveness, as determined by common assessments, in the case of Robinson
Middle. Mr. Thomas was asked if he felt as though instructional practices have
changed as a result of teachers analyzing assessment data. He responded that he felt
as though the California Standards Test (CST) data did not change practices but the
common assessments that teachers use did change instructional strategies due to the
timeliness.
When teachers dialogue about common assessments, they compared how
students did from one class to another. According to Mr. Thomas, this does two
things: (1) it lets the PLC team know which students tested at proficient levels on a
standard and which did not; (2) it also lets teachers know it the instructional strategy
that they used worked or not when comparing class scores from one teacher to
another. “When the common assessments data comes and you are compared to your
peers, there is no greater driving force,” Mr. Thomas pointed out. “No one wants to
be the weakest link. From, the data, a teacher knows who to go to and approach on
how to improve,” he added. Mr. Thomas shared that teachers need a point of
106
comparison. He gave the following example to demonstrate the effectiveness of
teachers sharing instructional practices:
If my class average is 80% and someone else’s is 90%, I know who to go to
for help. If my class average is 80% and somebody else’s class is 50%, I
know that I need to be sharing. Without sharing, I think teachers teach the
best way they know how everyday and hope the instructional practice works.
You ask, ‘Have instructional practices changed?’ You do not grow 50 points
in the API in three years because people are doing the same thing every year.
That is how we know. We can tell you that we have a record number of
students who are proficient right now than ever before. That means we have
gotten better at what we do than ever before. It has got to be doing
something.

Members of a PLC realize that all of their efforts must focus on learning,
collaboration, collective inquiry, action orientation, and continuous improvement
must be assessed on the basis of results rather. “Unless initiatives are subjected to
ongoing assessment on the basis of tangible results, they represent random groping in
the dark rather than purposeful improvement. The rationale for any strategy for
building a learning organization revolves around the premise that such organizations
will produce dramatically improved results” (Senge 1994, p.44).
The sixth grade core team had a mixture of new and veteran teachers. Mrs.
Henry shared that her team was very open and receptive to some of the innovative
practices of the younger teachers in order to gain greater results. The younger staff
on the sixth grade core teams had more hands-on type projects that contrasted to the
direct instruction that was often done by the staff members who had been teaching
for several years. The veteran teachers on the team saw that the hands-on projects
were a “great way of getting the students involved. How cool it would be to go into
107
each others’ classrooms and see how we all teach,” according to Mrs. Henry. “We
have all wanted to do that,” Mrs. Henry added. However, Mrs. Henry voiced a
concern that there might be some concern of teachers spying on other teachers. Mr.
Baker, eight grade history teacher, shared the same sentiment. “I know that teachers
are always nervous when someone comes in to watch them whether it is an
administrator or colleague because you are always wondering am I doing it right.
However, it would be good to observe instructional practices in other colleagues’
classrooms.”
The seventh grade core seemed to be just as open with sharing instructional
practices, just as the sixth grade core team seemed to be. Mrs. Anderson suggested
that the seventh grade core uses the data from the assessments “to tell a story and
then to discover what the story is.” The seventh grade core team collectively
analyzes all of the scores of the seventh grade students. They know which teachers
have the higher scores and which ones have the lower scores. The question then for
discussion becomes “why,” according to Mr. Anderson. Mrs. Anderson suggests
that the team is so open with each other due to the trust building that has taken place
on the team. The trust is so strong that Mrs. Anderson suggested that she could, for
example, say, “Hey, wow, Trisha, your scores are way high. What are you doing?
What are you doing that is different from what I’m doing?” The trust that has been
developed has allowed for open inquiry without any team members feeling
threatened by another’s success. This collective inquiry has become common
108
practice for the team since the implementation of PLCs, according to Mrs. Anderson.
“It is a part of our being,” she emphasized.
Even though Mrs. Babayan, the ELD teacher, seems to stand alone as a team,
she feels as though the staff is hungry for instructional strategies that would benefit
low performing students. “This staff is very committed to seeing all students
succeed,” she shared. According to Mrs. Babayan, the staff seeks out information,
strategies that will benefit students and then will implement the strategy in the
classroom. “The staff is very open to it,” she said to reinforce her point. Mrs.
Walker, a member of the sixth grade science team, concurred with Mrs. Babayan by
stating that when data is shared, “no one takes it as an insult.” When students have
not done well on a piece of assessment, Mrs. Walker reflects on the way she may
need to approach teaching the standard and change practices, as does the other
members of the sixth grade team. She added that the team is “open to sharing. It is
really amazing.”
According to the site principal and staff members who were interviewed at
Robinson Middle, instructional strategies have changed as a result of team
collaboration and reflective inquiry. During team collaboration time, teams have the
chance to compare class assessment results, see the students who are not performing
at proficient levels, and reflect on current instructional practices, which all leads to
eventual academic growth for students. Even though staff members seemed hesitant
to have other staff members observe each others’ instructional practices, they were
very open to staff members sharing instructional practices in team meetings for
109
implementation in their own classrooms. The Robinson Middle staff also seems to
have developed a sense of trust among all Robinson PLC teams, which has enhanced
the already evident collaborative culture to allow for teams to share instructional
practices at Robinson Middle.
Conclusion
The focus of this chapter was to report the findings on the professional
learning communities that Robinson Middle implemented in order to increase
student achievement. The chapter also looked at three sub questions covering topics
that led to the overall increase in student achievement. First, this case study
examined the characteristics of a professional learning community that embodies a
culture of collaboration for the sole purpose of student achievement. Second, there
was an inquiry as to why teachers at Robinson Middle preferred working in
collaborative communities, instead of working in isolation. This same question also
examined the reasons why resistant staff members resisted working collaboratively,
their adverse reactions to PLCs, and the reaction of the principal to resistant teachers.
Third, data was analyzed to illuminate the process that Robinson teachers have taken
to increase student achievement, from goal setting to analyzing data for increased
achievement.
In summary, Robinson Middle’s principal implemented professional learning
communities four years ago when he became principal. Understanding that
collaboration was the cornerstone to increased student achievement, Mr. Thomas
began introducing the concept to his staff from collectively creating a shared vision
110
in the beginning to guiding his staff through the developmental stages of a learning
community over the past four years. Due to collective decision making, including
creating team norms, identifying semester essential standards, and common
assessments, the staff took ownership of their professional learning community and
has seen it as a way of life that has led to increased student achievement. Every staff
member belongs to a PLC, whether it is a team of like subjects at a specific grade
level or a single member team who connects with other PLC teams on a regular basis
sharing expertise in EL strategies that would be beneficial for EL students in content
area classrooms. One interesting team consisted of the art, music, home economics,
and a technology teacher who meet weekly as a team supporting one another, as
possible. The overlying message of the principal is that collaboration is a non-
negotiable item; everyone works within a community with a sole of purpose of
increasing student achievement.
Even though the Robinson staff members seemed enthusiastic and fully
supportive, it was surprising when staff members spoke of reluctant staff members.
During the interviews, staff members recalled staff members who were resistant to
change, not wanting to change previous practice. It was interesting to hear the staff
recall these reluctant members either leaving the school site or becoming working
members on the team; the interviewees identified team norms as the reason for
developing deeper collaboration and cohesiveness that sometimes brought the
resistant members into being active, collaborative team members. Another reason
for staff members being hesitant to take on an active role in the team was due to
111
being new. The staff and principal expressed that there was no time to wait for staff
members to acclimate to the functions of a PLC. Instead, the principal developed
workshops to train new teachers in working on a collaborative team. However, even
with the workshops, a teacher pointed out that with turn over on a team results in
varied levels of expertise in analyzing data, and fully functioning as a team, which
sometimes creates an additional challenge for the team.
The process of using data in PLCs begins with creating quarterly goals in
grade level content areas at Robinson Middle. Teams specify reasons for making
their goal and how students will be supported in making that goal. However, the
Learning Notebook shows disparity in how students will be supported in reaching
their goals, with some teams being very specific to some teams being very vague.
This lends itself to question whether some grade levels are more successful in
student achievement when the teams are more specific with how students will be
supported when working toward accomplishing a goal. Teams also collectively
decide on the essential standards that students are expected to master each quarter.
Common assessments are attached to each one of those standards in order to check
for student mastery of the standard. For some reason, the common assessments did
not have a goal. However, according to the staff members who were interviewed,
the teams analyzed the quarterly assessments and semester assessments to see which
students had been successful in mastering the standards. Tutorials are then created to
support students with achieving the standards, even though the tutorials were met
with criticism, teachers still seemed to like the implementation of the tutorial
112
program this school year. Still, teachers often felt that tutorials did allow for enough
time for remediation since tutorial time is shared with all content area teachers,
sometimes only allowing a student to attend a tutorial in one subject one day a week.
This did not allow for students to be remediated quickly enough, especially when a
student continues in class under the current pacing guide.
The Robinson staff frequently shares instructional strategies during data
meetings, looking at teachers who have been successful in teaching students the
essential standards, as evidenced by student data on the quarterly or common
assessments. Teachers are eager to share ideas, especially from new teachers who
sometimes seem to have more current instructional strategies. However, it was
interesting to see that while sharing ideas was acceptable and sought after, observing
one another implement strategy was not met with as much enthusiasm due to
intimidation factors.
In all, the Robinson staff believed that professional learning communities
were the reason for their API success, with a fifty-seven point increase from 2004 to
2007. From creating a shared vision in the beginning to collective decision making
for the purpose of student achievement, the Robinson staff acts as a PLC. Teachers
are encouraged to work as collaborative team members and are given the support to
be knowledgeable in the functions of a PLC. Increasing student achievement is the
ultimate goal for all staff members. Goals are set, essential standards are selected,
common assessments are created, instructional practices are shared, and
interventions are planned in order to move students ahead.
113
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
In a PLC, collaboration represents a systematic process in which teachers work
interdependently in order to impact their classroom practice in ways that will lead to
better results for their students, for their team, and for their school (Dufour et al.,
2006, p. 5).

Overview of the Problem
No Child Left Behind and standards based education have brought an
increased sense of accountability for all teachers. Teachers are expected to have all
students meet the mandates of the required number of students meeting proficient
levels in content areas as measured by state assessments. The challenge for teachers
is that the required number of students scoring at proficient levels increases every
year beginning in 2007 – 2008. Meeting those mandates has initiated paced
curriculums that teachers follow in order to teach the standards that prepare students
for the end of the year assessment that measures whether or not a school or teacher
has been successful in teaching the required grade level and content area standards.
There is no longer the time available for teachers to teach a favorite unit that does
not coincide with state standards or the paced curriculum. These common standards
and paced curriculums have made it essential for teachers to dialogue, discussing the
essential standards, student outcomes, instructional practices, and planned
interventions for students.
The findings of this study show that Professional Learning Communities
provide a means for teachers to engage in active dialogue focusing on common
114
assessments, instructional practices, and planned interventions. PLCs also provide
the opportunity for teachers to analyze data as students work toward mastering state
standards. The essence of a learning community is a focus on and a commitment to
the learning of each student. Implementing a PLC involves a process from the
beginning stages of developing a vision or mission statement to collectively
analyzing data for the purpose of changing instructional practices and planning
interventions for students not learning. Guiding a PLC requires a leader that is
willing to lead and let others lead, as well. Working in isolation is not an option in a
collaborative environment. Reluctant teachers hinder teams from moving students
forward academically. Each member of a team is expected to share willingly as well
as participate regularly by following set norms or expectations for following pacing
or assessing students.
PLC is a reform measure that, if implemented well, could move schools
toward meeting NCLB mandates. Prior research studies are consistent with respect
to how PLCs develop to the point of sustainability, as well as describing the
necessary functions of a collaborative team that uses data to increase student
achievement (DuFour et al., 2006, Stoll et al., 2006, Hughes et al., 2006, Hord, 2004,
Jalongo, 1991, McLaughlin et al., 2006). This case study helped to open the “black
box” of what prior research says is required for a productive, collaborative PLC
school. The PLC teams at Robinson Middle reflected strongly the current research,
the defining characteristics of the Robinson PLC teams are described in more detail
115
below (Stoll et al., 2006, Hughes et al., 2006, Jalongo, 1991, Hord, 2004, DuFour et
al, 2006, McLaughlin et al., 2006, DuFour et al., 1998):
1. Teachers collectively share a vision.
2. A culture of collaboration is evident.
3. Teachers collectively share the success of students.
4. Teachers reflect on instructional strategies for the purpose of increasing
student achievement.
5. There is a willingness to share practices.
6. Data is shared among teams for analysis for intervention purposes.
7. Leadership roles are developed.
8. Team norms are created.
9. Collaboration time is available.
10. Teachers are trained to develop as a collaborative community.
What was interesting about this case study was that every staff member felt
as though he/she was a member of a professional learning community. A like
member team of four, such as the sixth or seventh grade core team, or a team of one,
the EL teacher, or an eclectic team of five, consisting of music, home economics, art,
and technology teachers, reflected the nine above mentioned areas during the
interviews. Even though some teams seemed to analyze data more deeply or some
teams did not have comparable data to analyze, the concept of collective decision
making was obvious and data was shared openly when available. Discouragement
116
seemed to only appear when teams lost members and the team was then challenged
with bringing new members up-to-date quickly.
I was also curious to see more data, such as the results of the common
assessments, in order to see the differences in student success between teams that
seemed to share more or analyze data more deeply or the process they took to
identify any data gaps. Robinson Middle is guided by a well-developed data
structure based on multiple measures, such as the common assessments, that measure
student learning. The Robinson staff uses data to make decisions about curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. By using data, the staff is able to validate weaknesses
and needs, identify priority issues, and effectively make adjustments in order to meet
all the needs of students. This is, of course, a result of NCLB and the increased
accountability of teachers to have students perform at proficient levels on the
California Standards Test.
In the sections that follow, I will reiterate the purpose of the study and the
main findings. I will then describe how the findings contribute to the research base
on PLCs and will provide recommendations for further study and for policy and
practice.
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this case study was to contribute information to the existing body
of research showing how a PLC was implemented at Robinson Middle School, a
school site in Southern California. First, the study examined the developmental
stages of a PLC to sustainability over time under the direction of a principal who not
117
only can lead but developed leaders who led their grade level and content area teams
to in depth assessment analysis leading to planned interventions and changed
practices. Second, the reasons for teacher reluctance or willingness to participate in
collaborative teams were also investigated. The investigation also looked at how to
build a culture of collaboration in which all teachers participated, working with the
reluctant or new teacher to become part of a collaborative group. Third, the study
examined how teams used data to change practices in order to increase student
achievement, from goal setting to creating common assessments while the best
instructional practices for student academic success.
Qualitative data were gathered for the purpose of answering the following
research question: How do Professional Learning Communities use student
assessment data to increase student achievement? The following supporting
questions were addressed using a single case study research design. This study,
which relied on qualitative data focused on one school that was identified as a leader
in their implementation of PLCs. In order to fully address the main research
question, the following supporting questions were also asked.
• What are the characteristics of effective professional learning communities
that collaborate for the purpose of student achievement?
• What do teachers perceive to be the benefits of working in professional
learning communities compared to working in isolation?
• How do teachers in professional learning communities use data to change
classroom practices?
118
Research Findings
Robinson Middle School implemented PLCs four years ago for the purpose
of increasing student achievement by building collaborative teams that would
analyze data, reflect on instructional strategies, and plan interventions for students
not mastering the essential standards. Mr. Thomas is a principal with a strong
understanding of what is needed to implement PLCs at Robinson Middle. He
believes in the importance of teacher ownership in order to build collaborative teams
that reflect on instructional practices, plan interventions, and are willing to change
practices in order to increase student achievement. In the beginning stages of PLC
implementation, developing a mission statement which the Robinson staff
collectively created was essential in developing a vision for the entire school. The
vision was written by the staff and agreed upon collectively as the vision for all
Robinson students. As PLCs took form at Robinson Middle, the staff also
collectively agreed to have a modified Wednesday schedule in which teams had the
opportunity to collaborate. Each team also created norms to follow, as well as
common assessments to check for student performance levels. Each staff member
had a voice and collective decision making was the expectation. Once the team
made the collective decision, it was the expectation of the site principal that all team
members abide by team decisions. Working in isolation is not an option at Robinson
Middle, which is why in the past some staff members have only stayed temporarily.
The Robinson staff has developed over the past four years through the
developmental levels of inquiry-based reform (McLauglin et al., 2006). From
119
creating team norms and learning how to analyze student data for student academic
success to focusing on improved student performance and using data for changing
instructional practices has been a four year journey to the point today that the staff
now sees PLCs as a way of life, not remembering what it was like before PLCs at
Robinson Middle. Every staff member is a member of a PLC, whether it is a team of
like subjects or a team that consists of an art, music, or home economics teacher.
Even the ELD teacher, seemingly a team of one, is an active member of all PLC
teams sharing instructional practices for EL students in all content areas.
Goal setting is an expectation for every PLC team. Goals provide staff
members with a sense of their short-term priorities and the steps to take to achieve
the benchmarks. Effective goals foster both the results orientation of a PLC and
individual and collective accountability for achieving the results. Effective goals
generate joint effort and help collaborative teams clarify how their work can
contribute to school-wide or district-wide improvement initiatives (DuFour et al.,
2006). Robinson’s goals are based on semester assessments. Interestingly,
Robinson Middle also has common assessments that are given throughout the
semester which are based on eight to ten selected essential standards. However, the
common assessments do not have goals or are necessarily directly related to the
semester assessments that do have goals. Also, it is interesting that the different PLC
teams seem to vary in the clarity of their goals as well as how to accomplish those
goals. Even though Mr. Thomas indicated that he expected teams to produce norms,
to choose essential standards with common assessments, and semester goals to be
120
submitted to the Learning Notebook by a specified due date, the variation in
acceptability was surprising. Information submitted ranged from very specific to
vague.
With every common assessment, PLC teams collaborate by analyzing student
data to see which students mastered the essential standards at proficient levels and
which students would benefit from additional interventions. A tutorial program was
implemented this year at Robinson Middle which allowed for half hour tutoring
sessions during the day. Students not performing at proficient levels were mandated
to attend tutoring sessions. However, the time constraints of the tutoring sessions
made it difficult for students to attend tutoring sessions in more than one content
area.
As student data were analyzed, instructional practices were also interrogated
with the purpose of increasing student achievement. The effectiveness of current
practices was examined to see what has been effective and what has not. Common
assessments allow the staff to see which students have mastered the selected
essential standards and which ones have not. The common assessments also allow
teachers to see which teachers have been more successful, by collectively sharing
data, and then share practices that were successful for those students. Interestingly,
the Robinson staff seemed very open to sharing practices but not to observing one
another. Trust to share data and instructional practices is evident among the staff but
seems to stop when it comes to one staff member observing another staff member
121
implement an instructional practice, partly due to intimidation and not having had the
opportunity to observe one another before.
Reflective inquiry is encouraged and has become the normal practice at
Robinson. Teachers share openly with one another, due to the commitment to
student achievement. Collaboration only becomes difficult with new staff members
who are not acquainted with the structure of PLCs. Having a team of new and
seasoned veterans has presented some issues that have been met with PLC
workshops for new incoming teachers. The Robinson staff has seen teachers
resistant to collaboration either eventually become part of the team or leave the
school. The Robinson staff sees the difference between the times when PLCs did not
exist at Robinson Middle to the implementation of PLCs today. The staff attributes
their continual rise in API scores and increased student improvement in the common
assessments to the continual collaborative efforts of all PLC staff members. They
see their site leader as being supportive who has allowed the staff to take ownership
of the PLC implementation by promoting continual collective decision making.
From all staff interviews, there was every indication that PLCs were working at
Robinson Middle and were the contributing factor to continual student academic
achievement. Even though the staff credits PLCs with academic improvements, I was
surprised that no teacher when interviewed mentioned the drop in API score in the
Hispanic / Latino population from 2006 to 2007. Even though the drop was perhaps
insignificant, the overall district API for the Hispanic / Latino population did
122
increase, suggesting that PLC teams may need to differentiate their data, taking a
closer look at the increasing Hispanic / Latino population at Robinson.
Several additional findings emerged in the study, which are not frequently
discussed in existing PLC research but seemingly necessary for PLC
implementation. First, the data revealed that improving academic achievement is an
ongoing process, meaning that student needs, community demographics, and state
requirements are continually changing. I noticed that as Robinson continually
reflected and monitored student learning and performance and examined ongoing
and emerging challenges, the staff explored potential solutions and successful
practices. Mr. Thomas stressed to his staff that even as there may be outside
influences to change practices, they would continue to do what works. As the
Robinson PLC teams developed they constantly reviewed current structures and
implemented changes to meet the learning needs of students, such as the school wide
tutorial program that was implemented this school year. This ongoing reflection of
supporting student learning, whether it is altering a bell schedule to implement a
daily tutorial is essential to the success of a PLC. Minimal information is given in
research as to how to support instruction that is outside the regular classroom.
Dufour et al. (2006) suggests in his research to be creative with planning when
reteaching students who do not learn, but little information seems to be given on how
that is to be done. However, these findings fit with the general principles of
continuous improvement.
123
Second, it was also interesting to note that, at least according to teachers at
Robinson, students perceived that classroom practices had changed due to PLCs. In
Chapter Two, there is an examination of developing PLCs, working in collaborative
teacher teams, and how teachers use data to increase student achievement. But, no
research was evident regarding the perception of students or the positive effect it had
on students from the implementation of PLCs. In the case of Robinson Middle, the
perception was positive and seen as bringing continuity to a team of teachers who
shared similar practices. Students were reportedly able to transfer learning strategies
from one classroom teacher to another due to teacher collaboration which benefitted
students in all content areas.
Third, research (Paine, 2008) indicates that there are levels of innovation in
which teachers transition from one level to another, from “learning to use” to “expert
use,” for an example. However, in my case study it was apparent that time is not
given to teachers to assimilate into the PLC environment. New staff members are
given workshops at the beginning of the school year on PLCs but are expected to
participate as a collaborative member of a PLC team. This is partly due to a paced
curriculum that allows for little time to adjust and stated expectations of abiding by
norms, analyzing common assessments, and planning interventions. Due to the
nature of covering numerous state standards and the pressure of increasing student
achievement, it is almost imperative that a new staff member quickly become a
working member of a PLC team.
124
Connections to Prior Research
In addition to the new insights and connections noted above, the literature
reviewed in Chapter Two can be connected to this case study in the following areas:
Creating a Shared Vision under a Supportive Leader, Building a Culture of
Collaboration, Working in Collaborative Groups Opposed to Working Alone, Setting
Goals and Analyzing Data Collectively, Examining Instructional Practices and
Common Assessments, Planning Interventions, and Planning Interventions when
Students do not Learn. I will explain in the sections below.
Creating a Shared Vision under a Supportive Leader
A shared vision is essential when asking the staff to make a commitment to
student achievement (Stoll et al., 2006). So too in this study, it was important to Mr.
Thomas to have the staff collectively write a vision statement before implementing
PLCs at the beginning or novice levels (McLaughlin et al., 2006, DuFour et al.,
2006). That collective decision on a vision statement was a commitment to student
success, created a sense of accountability, and encouraged staff members to work
collaboratively Stoll et al., 2006). As a supportive leader who believed in PLCs, Mr.
Thomas knew that building in collaboration time was essential for teams to be able
to collaborate (McLaughlin et al., 2006). Therefore, collectively, the staff voted to
change the regular school schedule to provide time for team collaboration on late
start Wednesdays.
125
Building a Culture of Collaboration
In order to build a professional learning community, research states that
teachers must have a willingness to share data and instructional practices (Stoll et al.,
2006). Trust among team members needs to be developed in order for teachers to be
willing to share those practices. In addition to trust, time needs to be made available
in order for a PLC to sustain itself over time. In order to sustain an ongoing culture
of collaboration, constant communication is necessary, as well as developing a
culture of collaboration for the purpose of changing practices for student
achievement. McLaughlin et al. (2006) states that there are developmental stages of
a PLC in which teams develop from creating a vision statement to taking ownership
of school wide reform that leads to student achievement. The staff at Robinson
Middle has developed through the stages of inquiry based reform while also
supporting new staff members as they acclimate to a PLC environment. The staff is
also willing to share practices and analyze data collectively, while planning tutorials
to support students not yet mastering content standards.
Working in Collaborative as Groups Opposed to Working Alone
Research states that teachers are often reluctant to share due to not being
willing to change current practices, whether it is due to current success or a fear of
being seen as incompetent (McKeever, 2003). In order for schools to succeed under
the NCLB expectations, collaboration needs to be a part of the school environment
with evidence of collective decision making in place, in regards to intervention and
instructional practices. Collaboration should be an expectation not an invitation
126
(Eaker et al., 2002). Understanding that teachers may be unwilling due to not having
the knowledge or understanding to work within a PLC (Paine, 2008), Mr. Thomas
learned that every year a new commitment to student achievement had to be made
collectively in order for everyone to take ownership. Also, in order to support new
staff members, workshops were given in order to educate new staff members on
PLCs. At Robinson, Mr. Thomas expected the staff to work as a collaborative team.
According to Mr. Thomas, working in isolation was not acceptable, and
collaboration was non-negotiable.
Setting Goals and Analyzing Data Collectively
Having goals aligned to the essential standards and common assessments is
essential in a PLC. Frequent common assessments throughout the year, serve as a
benchmark toward students mastering the essential standards (Hughes et al., 2006).
Common assessments serve to show what students have learned and which students
need intervention in order to master the content (Datnow et al., 2007). It is vital that
PLCs define the essential standards, plan common assessments, and after analyzing
the data plan interventions for students (Hughes et al., 2006). This was an
expectation at Robinson Middle. Each semester PLC teams selected eight to ten
essential standards that they expected the students to master. Those students were
then measured by either a common assessment or quarterly assessment. Teachers
then analyzed that data by analyzing the effective use of instructional practices and
then planning interventions for students not mastering content standards.
127
Examining Instructional Practices and Common Assessments
Looking at changing instructional practices also needs to be done collectively
for students to improve academically (Hord, 2004). Similarly, there was a collective
agreement at Robinson Middle that all PLC teams collectively decide on the
essential standards to be taught each semester, as well as establish the common
assessment to benchmark student performance on those standards. Quarterly
assessments are also decided by each teame, attached with a SMART goal. Teachers
also trust one another to share instructional practices openly during collaborative
team meetings, and are willing to borrow ideas of teachers who have been shown to
be successful in having students master the semester essential standards by content
area.
Planning Interventions when Students do not Learn
After analyzing the data and reflecting on changing instructional practices,
the question then becomes what do you do when students do not master the essential
standards? Strategies need to be developed for students who do not learn, whether it
is one-on-one support or small group tutoring. It is the school’s responsibility to
provide the support and time to work with students who are not mastering the
standards (DuFour et al., 2004). Robinson did exactly that. That provided the
support and time by implementing a tutorial program at Robinson to support students
who did not master the essential standards as defined by the content area teams.
Even though met with criticism with not providing enough time for remediation, the
128
implementation was met with enthusiasm realizing that with every new
implementation comes revision for improvements.
Implications for Policy and Practice
As a result of my study, including my literature review and the data analysis I
performed, I have identified some implications for policy and practice for
educational leaders. They are detailed in this section.
1. Embrace a Common Vision
In building a culture of collaboration, it is important for principals to lead a
staff collectively creating a shared vision for student achievement (Annenburg
Institute for School Reform, 2007, Roberts et al., 2003). Dufour et al. (2006) state
that schools should not wait too long before beginning the process of implementing a
shared vision. A central component of any school improvement initiative is the
development of a shared vision that establishes and maintains awareness of the need
for change. Change will not occur unless schools, parents, students, and the general
public understand that continuous improvement is needed. The goal is to create
more pressure for change than resistance to change. The intended outcome for a
shared vision and goals is for leadership, staff, students, and stakeholders to
articulate change and describe the vision for school improvement.
In terms of implementation creating a shared vision, with the consensus of
the staff, this provides a sense of direction for a school and defines what a school
must become in order to accomplish its purpose. Engaging staff members in a
dialogue to either write or reaffirm a vision statement can be an important step in the
129
improvement process. When collective decisions are to be made regarding school
practices, such as collaboration time or a implementing a tutorial program, the
following question should be asked, “Will it help us become the school we
envision?” (Dufour et al., 2006, p. 37).
2. Empower Leadership Teams to Take Action and Innovate
In order to develop a PLC the principal needs to be willing to let go of power
and create an environment in which collective decision making is evident (Hord,
1997). Collective sharing is essential when developing a culture of collaboration.
Collective commitments allow all participants to make decisions that effect student
academic achievement, as well as the day-to-day decisions of the school site
(DuFour et al., 2006). Even as a staff begins to collectively make decisions and
work as collaborative teams, the principal needs to work collaboratively with others
while also helping the staff to interpret data, as well as how to use the data (Boudett
et al., 2006, Petersen, 2005). Successful schools are led by individuals who possess
and communicate a vision of learning that will equip students with essential
knowledge. School leaders must lead institutions that are inherently resistant to
change. Leaders cultivate relationships and develop a culture of collaboration for
school improvement efforts, and create a shared vision regarding what to change and
how changes will be made. Sustained reform is facilitated when leadership guides
teachers, staff, and students to embrace a shared vision of school improvement.
Implementation: When a school functions as a PLC, staff members attempt
to answer questions and resolve issues by building shared knowledge. Members of a
130
learning community learn together. When all staff members have access to the same
information, it increases the likelihood that they will arrive at similar conclusions
(DuFour et al., 2006).
3. Creating a time for collaboration is essential
Creating a time for teacher collaboration is essential when wanting teachers
to work collaboratively and not in isolation. In schools where teachers have time to
collaborate, student achievement becomes evident, as measured by external and
internal measures (Hughes et al., 2006). Unless time is give to teachers to
collaborate, it cannot be expected for teachers to share practices or to plan
interventions to increase student performance (Stoll, 2006, Petersen, 2005,
Protheroe, 2003). Built in time for collaborative teams is essential (Conley et al.,
2004).
The site in this study was able to implement a late start Wednesday one day
per week, which can be a useful strategy for creating time for collaboration. Other
ways to provide collaboration time include: (1) Providing common preparation time
in the master schedule; (2) Scheduling common preparation time by assigning the
specialists (physical education teachers, librarians, music teachers) to provide lessons
to students across the entire grade level at the same time; (3) Coordinating activities
for students that would require supervision but not instruction, such as attending
assemblies (DuFour et al., 2006).
131
4. Recognize that teachers may be reluctant to work in collaborative teams
Teachers often avoid working in collaborative teams due to a fear of having
their data exposed or not knowing how to interpret the data, but fears diminish as
PLC teams move from one developmental stage to another (McLaughlin et al.,
2006). Often, teachers are threatened by change, not wanting to change current or
former practices. There are also teachers who fear being seen as incompetent or fear
losing a sense of autonomy (Conely et al., 2004, Jalongo, 1991). Even though Paine
(2008) describes levels of innovation, often there is no time for already existing PLC
teams to wait for teachers to transition from one level to another.
Team norms which are written collectively within each PLC team can help
define the expectation of all team members to work as collaborative members of a
PLC. In addition, team norms can written following the criteria listed in order to
build collaboration and lessen isolation: (1) Norms should be stated as commitments
to act or behave in certain ways; (2) Norms should be reviewed at the beginning and
end of each meeting; (3) Teams should evaluate the effectiveness of the team norms;
(4) Violations to team norms should be addressed. Team norms can help to establish
trust, openness, commitment, and accountability (DuFour et al., 2006).
5. Achievement goals help guide staff toward a desired outcome.
Taking time to set a school, grade level or student goal is purposeful when
assessing or planning student intervention strategies or choosing a best practice.
Goals should be specific and describe what the students should be able to do. Then,
a PLC team should decide how that goal will be measured (Nelson et al., 2005). The
132
goal should be connected to what the student should learn, as defined by state
standards, as well as a time period as to when the student will be measured (Nelson
et al., 2005). Teams then analyze the assessments to see if the goal was met and if
instructional practices were effective (DuFour et al., 2006).
6. Common assessments guide a team in planning interventions
After analyzing assessments, teachers may discover a difference between
what was taught and what is learned. The shift needs to be from teaching to
learning. Teachers need to be aware of what students need to know by the end of the
chapter before planning the chapter or unit. Once the teacher knows what is to be
learned, the task is then to decide the best of delivering instruction. Once an
assessment is given, the results determine which students have and have not
mastered the standards, leading to the question, how will we respond when a student
experiences learning difficulty (DuFour, 2004). Unless assessments are used to mark
student growth, then teachers would never know for sure if a student mastered a
standard. Standards based assessments will help the teacher to know if the student
has mastered a standard and then plan for interventions to help the student master the
standard (Hughes et al., 2006).
It might be useful for a principal to recommend that teachers start by
identifying eight to ten essential standards that students will be expected to achieve
in the content area for that semester. These standards should be linked to common
assessments which should align with the following criteria (Dufour et al., 2006): (1)
Connect to the curriculum and chosen essential standards; (2) Given on a frequent
133
basis to all students enrolled in the same course or grade level; (3) Administered at
the same time; (4) Created and analyzed by a collaboration team of teachers; (4)
Consider to be highly formative; (5) Used to help students to see their progress
toward a well-defined standard. Such common assessments can greatly aid the work
of PLCs as they can help put all teachers “on the same page” in their discussion of
student performance in relation to the standards.
7. Analyzing data and making instructional changes for student
achievement is an ongoing process
Being a part of a collaborative team means analyzing data, determining if
instructional practices were effective and being willing to change practices in order
for students to improve academically (Protheroe, 2003). The challenge is to select
the best instructional strategy that will result in increased student achievement
(Boudett et al., 2006, Marzano, 2003). What teachers assume is good instructional
practice may not be the case. For this reason, it is important to research best
practices and dialogue about practices that have resulted in student academic
success.
8. Refine the process on an ongoing basis
As PLCs develop, it is imperative to examine school wide practices to ensure
students have the support to master the essential standards as measured on common
assessments. There needs to be a continuous review and refinement of the school
improvement process as well as the monitoring of student needs, successful models,
and best practices. The ongoing question is “What do we do when students do not
134
learn?” The continuous review of practices would help to instill innovation and
collective reflection that might answer the question of what to do with struggling
students when they still do not learn. This goes beyond looking at instructional
practices and interventions. It is looking at the structure of the bell schedule to
create time to support struggling students, a built time for collaboration, and a time
to celebrate successes.
It is necessary to build consensus one small group at a time. It is easier to
build consensus with smaller groups than with meeting with one large group. One
large group allows for skepticism to dominate a meeting, if it arises. In the case of
Robinson Middle, there is a Leadership Team that has representatives of all
Robinson PLC teams. Information is initially shared with this team and then
dispersed to the PLC teams. When reviewing practices or seeing the need to
implement new school wide practices or changes, it is imperative to gain consensus
of small group, such as the site Leadership Team before dispersing information with
one large group. Agreement and support of a small group will lead more easily to
school wide support.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was conducted at one school site. Under the mandates of NCLB,
schools with high numbers of students in poverty (i.e., Title I schools) and high
percentages of second language learners feel the constant pressure. It would have
been interesting to see the impact on low performing schools who have implemented
professional learning communities. Robinson has a low poverty rate and few second
135
language learners. Schools like Robinson seemingly tend to excel due to having well
educated families not living in poverty that have home support in English. It would
be interesting to do a comparative study of a Title I and non Title I school, such as
Robinson, that have implemented PLCs. It would be interesting to see the
implementation of PLCs at both sites and then examine student achievement of
students from the two different schools.
Further investigation into the growing Hispanic / Latino population and how
their needs are addressed may be illuminating. The Robinson staff seems to strongly
support the concept of PLCs and have implemented what is necessary to sustain
itself over time, according to the research in Chapter Two. However, the excitement
that the staff shared over the 2007 API scores seems interesting, especially when no
reference was made to the growing number of Hispanic / Latino students who did not
make the same kind of results that the Asian and White population made. This lends
itself to the question, “When students don’t learn, what do you do next?” For
Hispanic / Latino students who are second language learners, it would be interesting
to see if teachers do implement, perhaps, EL strategies that the ELD teacher shares
with teams during team meetings. What is the follow through and is it monitored?
In examining the Learning Notebook, it was apparent that PLC teams submit
goals in various forms, from detailed to being somewhat vague in how students are
supported in achieving the goals. I was curious, at that point, to look at further data
to see if the teams that were more thorough in planning grade level content goals
were more successful than teams who seemed more unaware of their goal as
136
indicated in interviews or from submitted information that seemed to lack an analysis
of how to achieve the goal.
The principal has an expectation that once a grade level team collectively
makes a decision that the team follows through on that decision. Further research
into the monitoring and guiding of PLCs by the principal would be interesting,
examining when control is either too tight or too lose and the impact that it would
have on the development of a PLC or increased levels of student achievement.
Would teams who seem lose in planning benefit from tighter monitoring?
Robinson also implemented a tutorial program this year for students not
mastering the essential standards in the content areas. Investigating the correlation
between the tutoring program, strategies used in the tutoring program and data from
external or internal measures would be interesting to analyze, checking to see if the
tutorial did make a difference in those students and which strategies were more
successful in increasing student achievement.
Conclusion
Strong leadership is vital in implementing professional learning communities
and building cultures of collaboration. PLCs seem to go through developmental
stages to the point where PLCs become a way of life, not remembering as it was
before PLCs, as indicated by a staff member at Robinson. The collective sharing at
Robinson Middle has allowed for teachers to take ownership of their PLC as they
developed a vision, team norms, chose essential standards each semester, and
137
common assessments to measure students’ success, all under the guidance of the
school principal.
For Robinson’s principal, collaboration was a non-negotiable item. Since it
was non-negotiable, he knew it was also important to provide teachers with the time
to collaborate on a weekly basis. The Robinson staff supported the change in their
schedule and met regularly to examine data, plan interventions and reflect on
strategies. Once a staff or team collectively makes a decision, it is the expectation of
the principal that all staff members adhere to the team or school’s decision.
Reluctant staff members have either left the school, or through collective decision
making and expectations stated in team norms have become active members on
school teams. In order to support new staff members, workshops are conducted to
provide new staff members with the support needed to be active members on a team.
The expectation of the teams is that all members become active members
immediately.
Goals are essential to mark whether students have met an expectation.
Looking at goals encourages PLC teams to analyze the instructional practices needed
to meet that goal. Common assessments are also determined by teams to determine
whether or not a student has mastered the essential standards. After looking at the
results of assessments, teams can determine which instructional practices were more
successful than others. Teams can also plan interventions for students who failed to
master the essential standards.
138
I do believe that PLCs is a viable answer to increasing student achievement,
as indicated by the research in Chapter Two and the case study done at Robinson
Middle. Analyzing data leading to collective decision making in regards to
instructional practices and student intervention is essential to student achievement
under NCLB. An ongoing review of practices and procedures are also essential to
ensure that a school is meeting the needs of students, ensuring that students are
meeting the needs of an ever changing environment.
139
REFERENCES
Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (n.d.). Professional learning communities:
Professional development strategies that improve instruction. Retrieved
March 29, 2007, from www.annenberginstitute.org/images/ProfLearning.pdf.

Barth, R. (2006, March). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse.
Educational Leadership, 63 (6), 8 – 13.

Boudett, K., City, E., Murname, R. (2006, January/February). The data wise
improvement process: Eight steps for using data to improve teaching and
learning. Harvard Education Letter, 22 (1), 1 – 3.

Blue Valley Unified School District. Robinson Middle SARC. Retrieved June 25,
2007, from http://.Blue Valleyk.12.ca.us/html/about/Accountability2004-
2005/Robinson-sarc20042005.pdf.

Boyd, V. (1992). School context. Bridge or barrier to change? Austin, Texas:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Buffum, A. (2006, May 1). Professional learning communities: reigniting passion
and purpose: when educators focus on why some students are not learning,
rather than on pedagogy, the fundamental purpose of the education profession
is revived. Leadership, 35 (5), 16

California Department of Education. 2006 APR Glossary – Base API. Retrieved
June 26, 2007, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/glossary07b.asp#ga7.

California Department of Education. Testing and Accountability, Accountability
Progress Reporting, Robinson Middle School. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/AcntRpt2007/2006BaseSch.aspx?allcds=307364361163
05.

California Department of Education. Testing and Accountability, Accountability
Progress Reporting, Blue Valley Unified. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/AcntRpt2007/2006Base_DstApi.aspx?allcds=3073643.

Carroll, Lewis. (2002). Alice in Wonderland. Toronto, Canada: Random House. In
O’Neill, J, Conzemius, A. (2006). The power of SMART goals: Using goals
to improve student learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Clark, R., Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
140
Conley, S., Fauske, J., Pounder, D. (2004, December). Teacher work group
effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40 (5), 663 – 703.

Datnow, A., Park., V., Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, Rossier
School of Education, University of Southern California.

Datnow, A. Performance Driven Systems Study: Observation Protocol for Data-
Related Meetings. Retrieved July 29, 2007 from
https://email.usc.edu/en/mail.html?sid=BZrYKSMv1yo&lang=en.

Dufour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational
Leadership, 61 (8), 6 – 11.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker., R. (2006). Professional learning communities at
work: Plan book. Bloomington, IN: 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, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many., T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R., DuFour, R. (2002). Getting Started: Reculturing schools to
become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.

Fulton, K., Yoon, I., Lee., C. (2005, August). Induction into learning communities.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1 – 27.

Hall, G., Hord., S. (2001). Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and
Potholes. Neeham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, A Pearson Education
Company.

141
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Retrieved March 23, 2007 from www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: what are they and why are they
important? Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 6, (1). Retrieved
January 27, 2008 from www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues61.html.

Hord, S. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together leading together: Changing schools
through professional learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Hughes, T., Kritsonis, W. (2006). A national perspective: an exploration of
professional learning communities and the impact on school improvement
efforts. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student
Research, 1 (1), 1 – 12.

Giles, C., Hargreaves, A. (2006, February). The sustainability of innovative schools
as learning organizations and professional learning communities during
standardized reform. Education Administration Quarterly, 42 (1), 124 – 156.

Goals 2000 Education Program. (n.d.). Goals 2000 the Clinton administration
education program. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from
www.nd.edu/~barger/www7/goals2000.html.

Jalongo, M. (1991). Creating learning communities: The role of the teacher in the
21
st
century. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1999). Encouraging the heart: A leader’s guide to
rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lavie, J. (2006, December). Academic discourse on school-based teacher
collaboration; revisiting the arguments. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 42 (5), 773 – 791.

Louis, K.S. & Kruse, S.D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on
reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

142
Marzano, R., Norford, J., Paynter, D., Pickering, D., Gaddy, B. (2001). A handbook
for classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McLaughlin, M., Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

McKeever, B. (2003). Nine lessons of successful school leadership teams. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/recomm.html.

Nelson, J., Palumbo, J., Cudeiro, A., Leight, J. (2005). The power of focus: Lessons
learned in district and school improvement. USA.

Paine, S. (2008, January 31). Sustaining Outcomes Beyond Reading First. Power
point presented at the 2
nd
Annual Principal Coach Reading First Summit.
Long Beach, CA.

Patton, Michael Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. (3
rd
ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Petersen, J. (2005, November). Data-driven schools. Unpublished Manuscript, 1 –
15.

Protheroe, N., Shellard, E., Turner, J. (2003). A practical guide to school
improvement: Meeting the challenges of NCLB. Arlington, VA: Educational
Research Service.

Roberts, S., Pruitt., E. (2003). Schools as professional learning communities:
Collaboration activities and strategies for professional development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Ruben, H. J. & Ruben, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing
data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

143
Saphier, J. (2005). John Adams’ promise: How to have good schools for all our
children, not just for some. Action, MA: Research for Better Thinking.

Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a
learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Snow, J. (2005, April). Professional development in a culture of inquiry: PDS
teachers identify the benefits of professional learning communities. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21 (3), 241 – 256.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., Robert, S. (2006, December).
Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of
Educational Change, 7 (4), 221 – 258.

Teacher Leaders Network. Professional Learning Communities Resources.
Retrieved February 10, 2008, from www.teachers.org/resources/plc.htm.

Wald, P., Castleberry, M. (2000). Educators as leaders: Creating a professional
learning community in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Facts and terms every parent should know
about NCLB. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.html.

Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
144
APPENDICES
Interview Protocols:
Note: The interview will begin by giving the interviewee background information
on myself and by informing the interviewee about the study and its purpose. I will
also explain that while the interview will be taped recorded, their responses are
strictly confidential. Further, I will let them know that if there is something that
would like to say off topic, they may let me know and I will shut off the tape for
their comment.
APPENDIX A
TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Please tell me about your teaching experience at this school, specifically
grades taught and how long you have been a teacher here. (Background
Information)
2. Tell me how PLCs came about at this school and how you were involved?
3. How has your site principal supported your grade level team in becoming a
professional learning community? (Research Question 1)
4. Does your site principal provide time for your team to collaborate? (Research
Question 1 and 2) If yes: How has your site principal supported you in
creating time for your team to meet? (Research Question 1)
5. How long has your grade level team collaborated as a professional
community? (Research Question 1)
145
6. If started during the time of the teacher beginning at school site: How did
your team come together to collaborate effectively and how has your team
been able to sustain the collaboration over time? (Research Question 1)
7. Do you feel that that there are members of your team who still prefer to work
isolation? (Research Question 2) If yes: Are there obstacles to prevent that
team member to work in isolation? If yes to that question: What are those
obstacles?
8. Are there members of your team that are resistant to working in a
collaborative team? If yes to that question: Why do you think that they are
resistant?
9. What assessments does your team collect in order to assess if students are
making academic growth? (Research Question 3)
10. Does your team create academic goals for your student, grade teams, or
school? (Research Question 3) If yes: How does your team use these goals?
11. Probing Questions: Are goals year long goals? Is student feedback given on
goals? If yes: How often in the school year do students receive feedback?
12. During your team meetings, do you discuss instructional strategies that may
need to be used if students are not making academic gains? (Research
Question 3) If yes: Are teachers open to sharing instructional strategies and
open to the possibility for teacher observation to understand how to
implement the strategy?
146
13. During your team meetings, when you analyze data, do you target students
who are not mastering the content taught? (Research Question 3) If yes:
What is done for those students for them to acquire the information needed?
If no: What is done differently for students who are not learning?
14. How do you analyze data? (Research Question 3)
15. What effects have you seen from the use of data at this school? (Research
Question 3)
16. Probing question: Has it effected instruction or student achievement? (Give
examples)
NOTE: The interview will conclude with my thanking the participant for their time
and valuable input.
147
APPENDIX B
PRINCIPAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Please tell me about your administrative experience at this school, more
specifically how long you have been the site principal here. (Background
Information)
2. Were you the first principal to implement professional communities at this
school site? If no: How did you follow through from the previous
administrator. If yes: How did you begin to build a culture of collaboration?
(Research Question 1)
3. As your school site has gone through the developmental stages of a PLC,
where do you think you are presently compared to when you started or
carried through from a previous administrator? Giving examples of how
teams share data, developing leadership, and how teachers engage in
reflective practices. (Research Question 1)
4. Have you been able to sustain your school site’s PLCs? If yes: How have
you been able to do this effectively? If no: What are the obstacles to your
collaboration teams that are preventing sustainability? (Research Question 1)
5. Do you have teachers on site that are reluctant to work in collaborative
teams? If yes: What have you done to encourage teachers to work
collaboratively? If no: What have you done to prevent teachers from
working in isolation? (Research Question 2)
148
6. How do new teachers to the school site become a part of an already ongoing
PLC? (Research Question 2)
7. Do you provide collaboration time for your teachers? If yes: How often do
your teams meet and how have you worked this into the schedule? If no:
How often do teachers meet and how do they work around their present
schedules to meet as collaborative teams? (Research Question 2)
8. Do you have staff members on staff that you would consider to be a blocker
or skeptic? If yes: How do you work with these staff members as your staff
works collaboratively toward similar goals? If no: How have you motivated
your staff to work collaboratively and without interference from staff
members? (Research Question 2)
9. Do you play a role in collaborative team meetings? If yes: What is your role
and how often do you meet with each team? If no: Do you monitor these
team meetings in some way? Probing Question: Do you feel team meetings
need to be monitored? (Research Question 3)
10. How do you review data with your school site teams? (Research Question 3)
11. Have you seen instructional practices change as a result of team analysis of
assessment data? If yes, give examples. (Research Question 3)
12. What effect have you seen on student achievement as a result of PLCs?
(Research Question 3)
Note: The interview will conclude with my thanking the participant for their time
and valuable input.
149
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL TEAM MEETINGS (Datnow, 2007)
Note: During the observation, the researcher will take notes on the questions listed.
Meeting agendas should be attached, if possible.
1. What was the purpose/objective of the meeting?
2. Was there a formal/informal agenda distributed?
3. Who facilitated the meeting/discussion?
4. What type of data was used as a basis for the discussion? (informal student
assessment data, formal student assessment data, i.e., state assessments,
publisher created, district created, school created, or teacher created
assessments)
5. Who participated in the discussions of the data?
6. What was the nature of the discussion?
7. What prompts were used to analyze the data?
8. Was the data analyzed for the teachers or did they have to make sense of the
data themselves?
9. Were there any decisions made based on these analyses?
10. Were those decisions related to instructional or organizational changes to be
made?
11. Were there any short/long term goals or action plans established as a result of
these analyses?
150
APPENDIX D
CODING INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
Note: The following words or phrases were used to code transcripts when
organizing the findings for Chapter Four.
CODES:
• Leadership
• PLC Development
• Collaboration Time
• Norms
• Sustainability
• Culture of Collaboration
• Collaboration Time
• Collective Decision Making
• Working in Isolation
• Reluctant Teachers
• Goals
• Common Assessments
• Interventions
• Tutorials
• Instructional Strategies
• Analyzing Data
• Results

Abstract (if available)

Abstract No Child Left Behind has brought an increased expectation of accountability for all students. Professional Learning Communities is a strategy in which teachers can analyze data, reflect on instructional practices, and plan interventions for the purpose of increasing student achievement. This model embraces collective decision making, reflective thinking under the umbrella of a culture of collaboration for the sole purpose of monitoring student progress, ensuring that all students will learn.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

Cross-case analysis of the use of student performance data to increase student achievement in California public schools on the elementary level

PDF

How districts prepare site administrators for data-driven decision making

PDF

A school's use of data-driven decision making to affect gifted students' learning

PDF

Charter schools, data use, and the 21st century: how charter schools use data to inform instruction that prepares students for the 21st century

PDF

Closing the achievement gap by means of professional learning communities

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

Comparative evaluation of English learner student achievement in inner city urban schools

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

How direct instruction is being used to close the achievement gaps in literacy

PDF

The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School

PDF

Professional development in high- and low-performing elementary schools serving large numbers of African American, Latino, and low-socioeconomic students

PDF

The impact of professional learning community on teacher learning and student achievement: a qualitative approach

PDF

Building capacity in urban schools by coaching principal practice toward greater student achievement

PDF

A study of an outperforming urban high school and the factors which contribute to its increased academic achievement with attention to the contribution of student achievement

PDF

Multiple perceptions of teachers who use data

PDF

Reform strategies used by system leaders in education to impact student achievement: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Reynolds, David (author)

Core Title How professional learning communities use student data to increase achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/06/2008

Defense Date 04/01/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Professional Learning Community

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: Robinson Middle School (geographic subject)

Language English

Advisor Datnow, Amanda (committee chair), Mafi, Gabriela (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email dlreynol@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1255

Unique identifier UC1198674

Identifier etd-Reynolds-20080606 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-71149 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1255 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Reynolds-20080606.pdf

Dmrecord 71149

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Reynolds, David

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu