Professional+Learning+Communities

PLC Model Overview
To create a professional learning community, focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively, and hold yourself accountable for results. (DuFour, 2003, p.6) According to Richard DuFour, co-founder of the PLC model used in this study, American public schools are currently in the process of a reform movement. This movement replaces hierarchical top-down management with collaboration, providing teachers with a key role in determining a school’s mission, vision and values; discovering best practices for teaching; engaging in action research to assess student learning; and sharing research results to ensure continued innovation (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, pgs. 25-29). The term “learning community” first appeared among education scholars in the 1960s and has been used in various contexts and situations since that time ([|All things PLC]). However, a “true” professional learning community, as defined by DuFour and Eaker, is much more than a simple term. DuFour, along with other education scholars, insist that the term PLC cannot simply be applied to any educational situation, such as a group of grade-level teachers, an entire district interested in collaboration, or a national professional organization (2003, p. 6). The success of the PLC model relies on the willingness of administrators, teachers, and students to work as co-creators and co-facilitators of a new educational structure. In this structure, administrators must allow teachers time for collaboration and authority to redesign curricula. Teachers, then, must willingly share classroom materials and evidence of student learning with their colleagues. In short, a Professional Learning Community is a distinct model based on the following characteristics.

Ensuring that students learn
The focus of traditional schools is teaching; the focus of the professional learning community is student learning. The difference is much more than semantics. It represents a fundamental shift in the teacher-student relationship (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 216). Traditionally, teachers have been asked to report (to administrators, parents, etc.) what they have “taught” within their classrooms. In this model, teachers are held accountable for the amount of curriculum taught or the number of lessons “covered”; success is measured simply according to student test scores or grades. The PLC model, however, asks teachers to focus specifically on what students are (or are not) learning. Rather than simply “covering” curriculum, teachers in a PLC decide what each student should learn, how to determine if a student has learned this outcome, and how to respond if learning has not occurred (DuFour, 2004, p. 8). This principle has several ramifications. First, teachers must differentiate instruction based on varying students’ needs. That is, teachers cannot follow a prescribed pacing guide; rather, they must adjust lessons and assessments to accommodate those students who move slower (or faster) than the “normal” learning pace. By working in a collaborative team, teachers can design strategies for allowing extra support for those students who are struggling or those who need to be challenged. As a result, student learning is monitored closely and personally. A student’s success or failure is not measured by his/her ability to “keep up” with the class pace or pass a standardized test. Instead, each student must evidence learning based on timely, appropriate assessments designed by the classroom teacher.

A culture of collaboration
Educators who are building a professional learning community recognize that they must work together to achieve their collective purpose of learning for all (DuFour, 2003, p. 9). Obviously, one individual teacher (or administrator, legislator, scholar) cannot effectively determine the essential student learning outcomes for an entire grade level, content area, or district. It takes a team of individuals actively involved in student learning to develop appropriate outcomes, to test out methodologies, to assess student achievement, and to share classroom results. In other words, ensuring students learn requires collaboration. This model refutes the traditional top-down hierarchy, in which administrators, rather than teachers, choose curricula and assign standardized assessments. Instead, teachers’ disciplinary and pedagogical content knowledge are valued. Teachers reflect upon their own classroom practices and collaborate with colleagues on best practices for teaching. PLC teams work together to devise assessments, monitor student learning, and report their findings. Such collaboration requires both teachers and administrators to be transparent. First, teachers must be willing to share their teaching “successes” as well as instances when learning, for whatever reason, does not occur. Teams must be supportive, with colleagues willing to share material resources and classroom strategies. Teams must also be willing to base their curricular, pedagogical, and assessment decisions on actual classroom research. That is, teachers cannot rely solely on national or district standards or theoretical texts to design course content. They must also collaborate with students, making curricula appropriate to their learning needs and interests. Finally, administrators in a PLC must participate as co-creators, co-collaborators, and co-problem-solvers alongside teachers. DuFour and Eaker (1998) describe the administrator as sharing decision making with teachers; further, “this task demands less command and control and more learning and leading, less dictating and more orchestrating” (p. 184). In short, a successful PLC involves open collaboration among teachers, students, and administrators to achieve the collective purpose of learning for all.

A focus on results
Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on the basis of results…Every teacher team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence of progress (DuFour, 2003, p. 10). Inherent to PLC members is dissatisfaction with the status quo. Learning does not take place for once and for all; rather, as students’ learning needs continually change, so must the goals of a PLC and the methods for teaching those goals. DuFour and Eaker (1998) compare this commitment to continuous school improvement to one’s eating habits. They explain, “Becoming a learning community is less like getting in shape than staying in shape – it is not a fad diet, but a never-ending commitment to an essential, vital way of life” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 28). Members of a PLC, then, do not meet to report on daily lesson plans, complain about a difficult parent, or bemoan student discipline problems. Truly committed PLC teachers collect classroom data to evidence student learning and share these results with colleagues, parents, students, and administrators. This model is not designed to “punish” or “embarrass” teachers whose students have low test scores or poor grades. Rather, DuFour views this focus on results as vital to ensuring student learning. He considers a PLC successful when members “…honestly confront data on student achievement and…work together to improve results rather than make excuses” (DuFour, 2003, p. 11). Reporting assessment results, then, becomes an opportunity for teams to celebrate best practices, to replicate members’ successful methods, and to identify necessary curricular changes.