Professional Learning Communities

Professional Learning Communities

Reviving Collaborative Teams in Collaboraton

Airess Stewart

Oakland University
Reviving Collaborative Teams 1

Abstract

This paper will review Professional Learning Communities (PLC) in Collaborton School

District. Despite many challenges, the district is making an attempt to restructure. For the first

step, they identified the need for a more formal process to guide instructional conversations for

student success and decided upon PLC’s as the foundation. As a result of implementing this

structure, Collaborton will also create a guaranteed, viable curriculum and common assessments.

This paper will analyze the implementation of PLC’s through the four frames- structural,

human resource, political, and symbolic identified in Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s

Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (2008) and additional resources on

professional learning communities based on the work of Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour,

Robert Eaker and Janel Keating.

Upon completion of this paper, recommendations for next steps will be providing in order

to create sustainability.
Reviving Collaborative Teams 2

Introduction

Collaborton School District is a diverse district with over 80 languages and a student

population of 11, 000 students. There are 3 high schools, 1 alternative high school, 3 middle

schools and 9 elementary schools. The district has experienced a decline in student population

over recent years. Many families have choose to attend local private or charter schools due to

challenges the district has faced.

Within the last 5 years, the district has experienced many changes due to financial issues.

Due to the budget restraints, personnel have been cut significantly, primarily in the area of social

emotional support, which has been revived. In addition, school buildings have been closed and/or

restructured in response to declining enrollment. The most recent issue the district faces is a

teacher’s contract pending renewal. As tensions rise, staff frustration is at a high.

Collaborton is aware that major shifts with instruction and process that need to occur in

the district. Some direction was provided after an AdvancEd external review last year in which

two goals were identified. One of them is focused on collaborative teams, power standards and

grading policies. This is a part of the PLC process, which is the focus of this paper.
Reviving Collaborative Teams 3

Structural Frame

Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s) have been a part of Collaborton’s

organizational structure since the large professional development they sent staff to approximately

thirteen years ago. Due to lack of vision and goals, the district began implementing a “lite”

version of the process. This year, Collaborton has begun creating a clearer vision and goals for

PLC’s. The expectation has been clearly articulated to administrators at the beginning of this

year for collaborative teams to meet and use the 4 guiding questions from the Professional

Learning Community process: 1. What do we want students to learn? 2. How will we know if

they learned it? 3. What will we do if they do not know it? 4. What will we do if they know it

already?

With this as the focus, functional groups consisting of teachers and administrators are

being developed to continue to create the foundation for this work. This will be discussed in

more detail later in this section. Currently, Collaborton has a lateral structural frame. There are

a lot of meetings and task forces for various initiatives in the current structure. To a fault, there

are often too many groups and initiatives occurring simultaneously, leaving some to compete

with each other. Leadership is attempting to clear some of these in order for PLC to be seen as a

priority and also restructuring.

The book Every School, Every Team, Every Classroom, Eaker R. and Keating J. (2012) is

a guide for districts implementing PLC. In this book the authors identify the type of leadership

most successful: “we emphasize the need to provide high-quality, top-down leadership, direction,

and support, especially in the beginning of the PLC journey.” (2012, p. 15) Principals are

identified as the instructional leaders for PLC in their buildings. To support them, they will

receive training in monthly meetings led by the Assistant Superintendent.

Reviving Collaborative Teams 4

Guiding the work at a district level is a group that consists of principals representing

elementary, middle and high schools, district administration and representatives from the

instructional services department. They meet on a monthly basis to inform decision making and

meeting agendas for principal professional learning communities. Due to the size of the school

district, it can be difficult to coordinate a consistent message. The new meeting structure will

allow leaders to network and create a constant, consistent communication of the district vision

for PLC. Leadership has also begun networking with other local school districts to share ideas

on PLC implementation and sustainability.

A catalyst for implementing this structure was the External Review for accreditation in

the 2015-16 School Year. The three day review consisted of school professionals from other

districts providing very feedback in the areas of leadership, teaching and learning, resources and

support. Bolman and Deal discuss the need for “understanding the complexity and variety of

design possibilities” (2013, p. 67) when organizing structure. The review provided a critical lens

for restructuring and organizing priorities. The goals from this review have set a long term target

to be achieved in the two years. Other than these long range goals, short term targets have not

been clearly identified or articulated to staff. It has been recommended by consultants that the

district outlines a clear vision and 3 year action plan for the work of PLC. Despite

recommendation, the school year began without this in place. This has created some frustration

and confusion amongst staff.

As part of the revision of PLC, some schools have taken their own responsibility in

planning for PLC implementation. Over the last three years, one elementary school in the

district decided to revisit and revise the PLC process in their building. In order to do so, funds

for that school were set aside each year to send staff to trainings in the summer alongside the
Reviving Collaborative Teams 5

principal. This momentum has encouraged district leadership to invest more money into PLC

training. And as a result, sent two additional elementary schools to Lincolnshire in August 2016.

The schools selected are Title I buildings with a large at-risk population. Upon return, a plan has

been identified for each school to continue the learning with the rest of the staff and for those

principals who attended to create and lead a plan for their colleagues.

Additional funds have been set aside for the 2016-17 school year for additional training

and materials to continue the learning. The first step of the process is to create a guaranteed,

viable curriculum with support from a consultant for two days. Work groups are expected to

complete math and ELA power standards for K-12 by June 2017. Teacher leadership is the

driving force of this work. Professional learning to build awareness and receive input from all

staff not part of the workgroup is occurring simultaneously. This is the first time in many years

in which teachers are utilized to provide training for their colleagues in a formal fashion. To

support the work of the groups, a budget has also been set aside for teachers to compensate for

additional time and energy that they have invested.

Although PLC is not a new term for the staff in Collaborton, the process itself feels

foreign and like an additional “thing”. As stated in Every School, Every Team, Every Classroom

“Everyone needs to see how the work “fits”; otherwise professional learning communities will

just seem like one more initiative.” (Eaker & Keating, 2012, p. 45). The district is doing several

things to make connections. One example of this includes the work groups that are developing

the guaranteed, viable curriculum which is associated power standards and aligns with guiding

question #1: What do we want students to learn? Another example is an identified time in the

day for students to receive instructional support either as an extension or intervention,

Reviving Collaborative Teams 6

Collaborton calls this time Instructional Support Time and was created from work groups at each

level in the 2015-16 school year.

Structure for the implementation of PLC’s is key for success in Collaborton, which is

why there is a group focused on creating it now. “Structure needs to be designed with an eye

toward desired ends, the nature of the environment, the talents of the work force, and the

available resources…” (Bolman & Deal, 2013, p. 56). Although there is a beginning foundation,

there is lack of consistency with a continuous message, identified goals and timeline to all staff,

leaving confusion and frustration for many. Even though principals are leading work at the

building level, there are many teachers willing to step into the teacher leadership roles for PLC’s.

This has created a positive momentum for many staff. As the work continues, it is apparent for

the district to continue building a structure with the end in mind and articulate a timeline with

short term achievable goals. It would also be beneficial to allocate resources for training for

staff.
Reviving Collaborative Teams 7

Human Resource Frame

Collaborton has faced many challenges in human resources over the past few years. Due

to significant budget reductions, there have been several cuts of support staff, which ultimately

impacts student services. These positions include literacy intervention, coaching,

paraprofessional support, student assistance and instructional consultation facilitators. This has

left teachers feeling alone in handling the many needs of their classroom, both academically and

behaviorally. A couple years ago, general education teaching staff were also impacted due to

cuts since the district has been in the process of closing schools and restructuring. Due to these

cuts and instability in the last 5 years, many skilled teachers found employment in other districts

for more job security and others are looking to leave now for the same reason.

The most recent concern regarding human resources with the teaching staff is a pending

contract. District administration and the union have been in ongoing negotiations for the past six

months and have recently called in a mediator. The main topic is the pay scale. The district is

looking at reducing teacher pay, or maintaining a pay freeze that has been in place for the past

eight years. In the meantime insurance has also changed with increasing premiums. Teachers

have already lost a lot of money and now they are feeling overworked and underappreciated.

This in turn, has impacted the amount of buy-in for PLC’s, amongst other initiatives in the

district.

Bolman and Deal state “When the fit between people and organizations is poor, one or both

suffer…” (2013, p.35) Collaborton is unable to meet the financial needs of their staff due to a

fund imbalance. However, it may benefit the district to explore alternative ways to reward their

employees in the midst of negotiations.

Reviving Collaborative Teams 8

Currently, the teaching staff seems to be divided on their stance in handling the contract

issue. As mentioned earlier, many teachers are stepping up to lead groups for the power

standards and setting creating positive momentum. Others are demanding extra pay for anything

they do. The district is providing these opportunities within certain parameters for the work to

occur if work groups meet after hours. However, there is an expectation within the professional

responsibilities of teachers that is not given additional compensation, such as participating in a

collaborative team, which has angered some teachers.

As indicated earlier, Collaborton sent many staff members to PLC training in

Lincolnshire. To support the PLC development and protect teachers, the union president was

sent with the group. He is in full support of the PLC process, the power standard development

and instructional support time.

Time for teams to meet plays a critical part in professional learning communities. In the

book, Learning By Doing, Third Edition, Dufour R. (2006) it is stated “Reciprocal accountability

demands that leaders who ask educators to work in the collaborative teams provide those

educators with time to meet during their contractual day” (2006, p. 64) Some examples of this

time includes adjusted start/end time, parallel scheduling or banked time. Currently the contract

states that teachers are required to participate in 35 hours of PLC time written into the plan. It

has been communicated that this will continue to be in place for the following year. Teachers

have been directed by the union to account for this time once a week outside of their contractual

hours. PLC time is therefore allowed during lunch, before or after school. This year the district

has created one half day a month for PLC meetings to support the work, which is too infrequent

for ongoing, meaningful work to occur. Teachers are further conflicted with this time directive

because they feel that if it is a priority to the district than time should be allotted during the
Reviving Collaborative Teams 9

school day for collaboration. The district work group has identified the need to revisit this topic

for the following year.

Instructional department staff leading the work are making attempts to gain insight from

teachers through informal conversation and a survey which is being developed. Leadership is

doing some things to recognize those teachers going above and beyond in other ways such as

personal notes, small tokens of appreciation or extra duty pay. As the work continues, it will be

important to celebrate small successes by teacher, building and district. Eaker and Keating

recommend celebrations occur “…at each stage in the journey-every time significant work is

successfully completed.” (2012, p. 109)

Reviving Collaborative Teams 10

Political Frame

The recent national election has added to the already growing tension in the district. Staff

has a growing concern for the state of the educational system. There have been a lot of negative

conversations between staff with staff, students and parents. To address this, district leadership

created a message to ease tension. The elections results have impacted the work of professional

learning communities due to perceived distrust of the system and colleagues.

This year has also been full of excitement in politics at the district level as well. More

specifically to Collaborton, the November election identified 5 out of 8 new board members.

The results of the local election were positive. Most of the new members are in support of the

current direction of the district. Staff have long anticipated the results of this election since

September because the contract is being negotiated at the same time. Beginning in January,

there will be a lot of adjustment to a fairly new school board.

In relation to professional learning communities, the topic is not new to the Board of

Education. When a goal for PLC’s was addressed last year at a board meeting, one of the

members stated “I thought we were already doing that”. It is unclear how much understanding

members have of the process and what it entails, especially the ones recently elected. In Every

School, Every Team, Every Classroom, the authors suggests the school board”…understands the

fundamental concepts and practices…and, more importantly, why it is important to implement

PLC practices” (Eaker & Keating, 2012, p. 26) There currently is not an outlined planned for

leadership communication to the board regarding professional learning communities. A steering

committee is currently creating a timeline, with specific tasks such as a survey and packet to be

completed by June 2017. This information would be beneficial to share with the board after

January.
Reviving Collaborative Teams 11

Symbolic Frame

Collaborton has recently begun articulating a clear vision for PLC in the district with

direct long term goals that were identified through the accreditation process. Some staff

members have values associated to PLC due to positive experiences from training or school

vision, but they are not shared across the district. These values are based out of the four guiding

questions to professional learning communities which creates the foundation for collaboration

within the school setting. However, there are some staff that are having difficulty accepting

these values due to poor PLC experiences years ago. Throughout the year, there will be

professional learning opportunities to rebuild the foundation, led by building administrators.

Stories are the main symbol to PLC in Collaborton since they started the journey thirteen

years ago. Depending on the building the story varies based on experience, as mentioned above.

According to Bolman & Deal, “Denning (2005) puts the functions of stories into eight

categories.” (2013, p.254). Two functions of stories most prevalent in the district are to share

knowledge (to new staff, community and board members) and to spark action to move into the

future.

Bolman and Deal also state: “Ceremonies are more episodic, grander, and more

elaborate (than rituals).” (2013, p. 260). As mentioned earlier, the district took part in an

important ceremony last year, which was the external review from AdvancEd, which happens

every five years. This was a three day visit from an external team and ended with a presentation

to the board, superintendent and Collaborton staff. As indicated earlier one of the goals included

collaborative teams, which the district is identifying as PLC. The goals from this review are

reported this year and need to be completed in two years. As part of this process, the district
Reviving Collaborative Teams 12

team will be required to report the progress to the board. Additional work connected to PLC that

will need to be reported is the work of power standards. This is also part of the AdvancEd goal.

This will give them a richer understanding of the process and goals aligned to professional

learning communities.
Reviving Collaborative Teams 13

Conclusion

Professional Learning Communities is a process for educators to collaborate in teams to

meet the instructional needs of their students using data. The development of collaborative teams

was an identified need by staff and the External Review team in the 2016 school year. The PLC

process was selected to meet this need.

This school year, Collaborton has begun creating vision and goals for PLC’s. In addition,

work groups have been formed to identify power standards to address the first guiding question

and to establish guidelines for staff participating in a PLC. Although a district work group

identified actions for the year and a recently developed timeline, there has not been clear

communication to staff. And, even though the expectation is for teams to meet, they are required

to do so outside of the school day, despite the recommendation to have time embedded during

the day.

Lack of communication of goals and expectations coupled with a pending contract

renewal has left many teachers feeling hopeless. Fortunately, there are still some teachers

willing to lead some of the work despite the current state of the district. This momentum is

keeping the work moving forward.

The district has started to create a solid foundation for PLC by building on the structures

they currently have in place from previous trainings. As the district continues on the PLC

journey, Collaborton will need to articulate clear goals to all staff and board members, along

with a timeline, long term goals with short term achievable targets. Although resources have

been allocated for this work, there were need to be a budget identified for PLC to include

training and materials. Time for teams to collaborate was a critical identified area in research led

by Dr. Richard DuFour and his colleagues who designed professional learning communities. If
Reviving Collaborative Teams 14

the district is vested in making this a priority, leadership will need to review the schedule for

opportunities for meeting time within the school day. Above all, leadership will need to find

more ways to celebrate PLC successes and acknowledge teachers as they are moving the process

forward.
Reviving Collaborative Teams 15

References

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DuFour, R. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at

work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Eaker, R. E., & Keating, J. (2012). Every school, every team, every classroom: District
leadership for growing professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree Press.

Craig, Bill, (2016) Report of the External Review Team for Farmington Public School District.
Farmington, MI: Advanc-Ed