This article was downloaded by: [West Virginia University]

On: 17 April 2015, At: 03:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Arts Education Policy Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vaep20

The Culture of Professional Learning Communities and

Connections to Improve Teacher Efficacy and Support
Student Learning
a b
Sharyn L. Battersby & Brian Verdi
a
The Catholic University of America, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
b
J. P. Stevens High School, Edison, New Jersey, USA
Published online: 12 Dec 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Sharyn L. Battersby & Brian Verdi (2015) The Culture of Professional Learning Communities and
Connections to Improve Teacher Efficacy and Support Student Learning, Arts Education Policy Review, 116:1, 22-29, DOI:
10.1080/10632913.2015.970096

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2015.970096

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 ARTS EDUCATION POLICY REVIEW, 116: 22–29, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1063-2913 print / 1940-4395 online
DOI: 10.1080/10632913.2015.970096

The Culture of Professional Learning Communities

and Connections to Improve Teacher Efficacy and
Support Student Learning
Sharyn L. Battersby
The Catholic University of America, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Brian Verdi
J. P. Stevens High School, Edison, New Jersey, USA
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015

As a result of Race to the Top, states across the country vied for school improvement grants
in order to advance educational reforms including effective professional development and
teacher collaboration within their school districts. Requirements of the grant included the
development of teacher evaluation systems and a professional development model to support
teacher growth and efficacy. Grant recipients unanimously chose to incorporate some type
of professional learning community (PLC) and selected models that emphasized increasing
and sustaining teacher collaboration in all disciplines. PLCs offer an opportunity for music
educators to receive pedagogy specifically tailored to their discipline. Music teachers and
arts supervisors should consider incorporating online PLCs into their programs not only to
address professional development, but also to address teacher isolation and attrition and
student achievement and, ultimately, to enact fundamental changes in their districts.

Keywords: collaboration, music education, professional development, professional learning

communities

INTRODUCTION development (Coggshall et al. 2012, 2). Teacher evaluations

Race to the Top (RTT), a program signed into law by Presi-
dent Obama as part of the American Recovery and Reinvest-
ment Act (ARRA) of 2009, challenged states across the
country to vie for funds from a $4.5 billion school improve-
ment grant (SIG) in order to advance reforms that would
result in significant improvement in student outcomes and to
implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system. The fund-
ing was intended to encourage individual states’ efforts to
improve education and promote “innovative” schools. It was
also viewed by governors and state legislatures as a unique
opportunity to gain political traction for important education
policy changes at the state level (Robelen 2009, 1). In an
effort to support effective teaching, the SIG required states
to develop teacher evaluation systems that supported teacher
growth through constructive feedback and professional
Address correspondence to Sharyn L. Battersby, The Catholic Univer-
sity of America, 620 Michigan Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20064,
USA. E-mail: BATTERSBY@cua.edu
had to include multiple measures of performance, such as
classroom observations and growth in student test scores
(Carey 2011, 2). States were obligated to provide effective
professional development that included “common planning
and collaboration time for teachers” (U.S. Department of
Education 2009, 10). SIG guidance documents emphasize
job-embedded professional development that focuses on
“understanding what and how students are learning and on
how to address students’ learning needs, including reviewing
student work and achievement data and collaboratively plan-
ning, testing, and adjusting instructional strategies, formative
assessments, and materials based on such data” (U.S.
Department of Education 2011, 2).
More specifically, reforms included the integration of
time for collaboration into every school to allow specialty
area instructors, classroom educators, and grade-level
supervisors to meet on a regular basis. For those teachers
who were not able to discuss various issues in a physical
space, virtual collaboration would be provided electroni-
cally (APQC Education 2009, 52).

Grant recipients unanimously chose to incorporate into
their efforts some type of professional learning community
(PLC), such as the models discussed by DuFour and Teach-
First (APQC Education 2009, 27), which emphasize
increased and sustained collaboration among teachers from
all disciplines (41). Regardless of which PLC model they
chose to implement, they all uniformly believed that the
success of the model was contingent upon “a collaborative
process and environment” (20). One district found that
PLCs “provided a common language and attitude to distrib-
ute and implement the same curriculum and objectives
throughout the district” (37).
The purpose of this article is to define a PLC as it relates
to the music education profession and to describe how
music educators can enhance their professional develop-
ment through the use of online professional learning com-
munities (OPLCs). In addition, this article proposes that
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015
PLCs are a legitimate form of professional development
that satisfies components of new teacher evaluation frame-
works. Many arts specialists are evaluated using the Daniel-
son model (“A Framework for Teaching”) or the Marzano
model (“Teaching Evaluation Model”) and are credited for
participation in professional development. However, poli-
cymakers have been slow to address the dilemma of iso-
lated arts specialists who generally do not receive support
or resources at their school professional development meet-
ings or are not scheduled to receive content-specialty meet-
ings at all. PLCs offer opportunities for arts teachers to
satisfy professional development requirements that include
the mandatory evaluation component incorporated within
the framework of all models.
WHAT IS A PLC?
Although referred to by a number of different names (e.g.,
professional learning communities, communities of learn-
ers, professional communities), the common goal of
“community” models is to promote collaboration among
teachers by creating a collaborative professional culture
(Stoll et al. 2006, 222–23). PLCs offer an infrastructure to
create the supportive cultures and conditions necessary for
achieving significant gains in teaching and learning and for
assisting teachers to become more effective in their work
with students (Morrissey 2000, 3).
According to Crow, “a professional learning community
requires intention, a focus on learning, a focus on results, a
commitment of collegiality and a willingness to reshape a
school’s culture” (2008, 4). In order for collaborative cul-
tures to be successful and collegial, teachers need to partici-
pate in authentic interaction that includes openly sharing
both failures and mistakes and to possess the ability to
respectfully and constructively analyze and criticize practi-
ces and procedures that promote self-reflection (Marzano
2013, 61). These learning communities may consist of
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 23
teachers who share subjects, students, or grade levels (Arm-
strong 2010, 15). Louis and Kruse explain that one of the
primary characteristics of an individual in a successful PLC
is willingness to accept feedback and work toward improve-
ment (1995, 736). To be successfully implemented, a PLC
must have members who meet often and regularly as part of
their teaching program (Voelkel 2011, 22). According to the
model developed by Hord, PLCs have the following dimen-
sions: (1) supportive and shared leadership, (2) collective
creativity, (3) shared values and vision, (4) supportive condi-
tions, and (5) shared personal practice (1997, 14–23).
The concept of PLCs has evolved over the years, and the
latest model by DuFour (2004) identifies six components
that effective PLCs share: (1) a focus on learning; (2) a col-
laborative culture, including shared beliefs, values, and
vision, and an atmosphere of trust and respect; (3) collec-
tive inquiry into best practices; (4) an action orientation;
(5) a commitment to continuous improvement; and (6) a
results orientation. This model is based on the assumption
that “the core mission of formal education is not simply to
ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn”
(8). It is a shift from a focus on teaching to a focus on learn-
ing (8). A study by Louis, Marks, and Kruse that docu-
mented the benefits of teacher learning communities found
that teachers who collectively held themselves and their
colleagues accountable for student learning honored a sus-
tained commitment to overall student improvement (1996,
757–98). DuFour states that when teachers make it their
responsibility to ensure the success of each student, pro-
found changes can take place:
The school staff finds itself asking, What school character-
istics and practices have been most successful in helping all
students achieve at high levels? How can we adopt those
characteristics and practices in our own schools? What
commitments do we have to make to one another to create
such a school? What indicators could we monitor to assess
our progress? When the staff has built shared knowledge
and found common ground on these questions, the school
has a solid foundation in moving forward with its improve-
ment initiative. (2004, 8)
Two popular frameworks by Danielson and Marzano
that primarily address teacher growth and evaluation are
currently being implemented in a number of states, includ-
ing Arizona, Missouri, New York, Ohio, and New Jersey
(Learning Sciences International 2013). Both models
require teachers to collaborate in a type of learning commu-
nity (Marzano Research Laboratory 2012, 65–66). The
level at which a teacher participates in a PLC determines a
portion of that teacher’s performance rating. The level at
which a teacher actively pursues professional development
opportunities and the degree to which he or she assumes a
leadership role in their school or district’s PLC are rated
using a teacher effectiveness rubric (Danielson Group
2013, 100–01). For instance, under the Danielson
 24 BATTERSBY AND VERDI
framework’s heading of “Participating in the Professional
Learning Community,” a teacher who “avoids participation
in a professional learning culture of inquiry” would receive
an ineffective rating, whereas a teacher who “takes a lead-
ership role in promoting a culture of professional inquiry”
(Danielson Group 2013, 100–01) would receive a distin-
guished rating. There are also various ratings that fall
between the two extremes that encourage teachers to
become more involved in professional development.
PLCs have been shown to be an effective strategy in
improving student achievement and increasing teacher qual-
ity (Dufour and Mattos 2013, 37). Successful implementation
of PLCs requires that an organization of teachers and admin-
istrators work collaboratively in an ongoing process of struc-
tured inquiry and action research for the purpose of achieving
better results for their students by ensuring high levels of
learning for all (Washington County School District 2011, 1).
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015
RATIONALE FOR PLCS
Music educators and other arts specialists often find them-
selves working in isolation within a school building, and
their schedules often do not align with those of their col-
leagues. This can result in exclusion from team or faculty
meetings, especially when the instructor is the only music
specialist in his or her department (Sindberg and Lipscomb
2005, 52). A number of first-year music teachers have indi-
cated that one of their main concerns is the isolation they
experience as new teachers and the difficulty they face in
networking with colleagues (Krueger 2003, 93). Schools
typically do not offer an infrastructure to support, require,
or expect teachers to collaborate (DuFour 2011, 57–58).
Teachers are limited in their ability to consult with one
another during the week because of their teaching obliga-
tions and building organization (Lortie 1975, 73).
Take for example, Mark (not his real name), a visual arts
teacher in a middle school in Manhattan who is the lone
arts specialist on the faculty. In a typical week he has
twenty-five teaching periods, five preparation periods, and
five professional assignment periods (contractual nonteach-
ing duty), but he is not assigned to any departmental meet-
ing because there is no department for arts specialists. At
the same school, a typical English language arts (ELA)
teacher with the same teaching load is also assigned to a
“study group” period for the express purpose of discussing
teacher lesson plan development and teaching methods, and
analyzing the Regional Special Education Technical Assis-
tance Support Centers (RSE-TASC) rubric for evaluation
purposes with other ELA teachers. These meetings are con-
ducted by the literacy “coach” and the assistant principal in
charge of the ELA Department. The art teacher is invited to
three professional development sessions—one in Septem-
ber, one in November, and one in June—but the topics dis-
cussed there are not overtly related to the arts, and the only
subject-area teachers who stand to benefit from these ses-
sions are those who teach math and ELA.
New teacher evaluations systems have also increased in
national popularity since the passage of RTT (McGuinn
2012, 1). A number of states—including New York, New
Jersey, Illinois, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, South Dakota,
Florida, and Washington, in addition to individual school
districts such as the Los Angeles Unified School District,
Memphis City Schools, and Pittsburgh City Schools—have
adopted Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching or
a version of it as an approved model for teacher evaluation
(Teachscape 2011).
The art teacher in the previous example (who shared with
me his evaluation rubric, a version based on the Danielson
model) is required to be evaluated using the same assess-
ment tool as that used with the math instructors. A sampling
of what Mark is being evaluated on is as follows: in the
domain of “Professional Responsibilities” (domain 4), under
the heading of “Participating in Professional Community”
(element 4d) the evaluation focuses on “regular teacher par-
ticipation with colleagues to share and plan for student
success” (4d1), “regular teacher participation in professional
courses or communities that emphasize improving practice”
(4d2), “regular teacher participation in school initiatives”
(4d3), and “regular teacher participation and support of com-
munity initiatives” (4d4) In this case, a teacher in Mark’s
position could satisfy the requirements of the Danielson
model through participation in a district OPLC.
While new teacher evaluation systems are being used as
a basis for and in support of professional development
(Marzano Research Laboratory 2013, 1, 71), they are also
designed to weed out ineffective teachers, regardless of ten-
ure status, “after ample opportunities have been provided
for them to improve their professional practice” and they
“have not done so” (U.S. Department of Education 2010,
36). PLCs support teacher professional development rather
than penalize teachers for their apparent deficiencies.
Although ongoing professional development is required by
new teacher evaluations systems (U.S. Department of Edu-
cation 2010, 24), music educators can learn to utilize PLCs
to enhance their professional development and support stu-
dent achievement through the use of OPLCs.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has
emerged as a way for teachers to communicate with their
peers easily and efficiently. A study by Hough, Smithey,
and Evertson (2004) states that as Internet use became
more prevalent in homes and schools, teachers began using
CMC to electronically discuss and reflect upon their teach-
ing strategies. They argue that it should become a univer-
sally available tool for reflective professional development
in schools. According to Abeles, Conway, and Custodero,
“computer mediated communications such as discussion
boards, chat room, or wiki might serve to help facilitate
early career music teachers’ interactions” and promote the
collaboration among different music educators within a

district that is essential for school districts to establish and
sustain strong music programs (2010, 304).
Since the inception of CMC, a body of research has
grown addressing its use in teacher preparation and profes-
sional development. The results of one study indicated that
both preservice and in-service teachers could benefit from
the use of CMC because teachers have so little time to
reflect and collaborate during the school day, and these
tools provide a time and place for these activities (Nichol-
son and Bond 2003, 276). Through the use of CMC, teach-
ers can learn how to develop a “teacher learning
community” or “community of practice,” defined by
Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder as “groups of people who
share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a
topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in
this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (2002, 4).
In doing so, “teachers become empowered to bring their
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015
own issues of teaching and learning to these learning
communities” (Abeles, Conway, and Custodero 2010, 314).
Unfortunately, although these types of professional learning
communities have now become popular in a number of
school districts, music teachers are often the only instruc-
tors of their kind in a “teacher learning community”
(Abeles, Conway, and Custodero 2010, 314). Although
PLCs have become more inclusive over the years, expand-
ing to include the “specials” or “arts quota” music teachers,
districts have begun to create their own online learning
communities specifically to address their own professional
development queries and solutions (a trend explored in
more depth later in this article).
Proponents of reform and professional organizations
have endorsed the concept of PLCs. One such organization
is the National Staff Development Council (2001), which
has included learning communities as one of its standards
for staff development, suggesting that PLCs are a strategy
for school improvement, specifically through professional
development (Feger and Arruda 2008, 1).
THE IMPORTANCE OF SUSTAINABLE
AND COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Clandinin and Connelly state that teachers “need others to
engage in conversations where stories can be told, reflected
back, heard in different ways, retold, and relived in new
ways in the safety and secrecy of the classroom” so that
awakenings and transformations can occur (1995, 7, 13). In
order for teachers to benefit from professional development
activities, these authors suggest that the learning take place
through collaboration in the context of teaching.
Teachers need access to outside knowledgeable sources,
but “professional development should also tap local exper-
tise and the collective wisdom that thoughtful teachers can
generate by working together” (Feiman-Nemser 2001,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 25
1042). Faigenbaum asserts that professional development
activities for teachers should be “complex enough to meet
different teacher needs,” just as teachers design classroom
activities to meet the needs of their students at different lev-
els of skills and knowledge (2003, 333).
Effective professional development is an invaluable way
to benefit both the individual and the profession. It can help
“develop close and continuing relationships between teach-
ers at elementary/secondary schools and colleges; involve
professional organizations in the career development of a
music educator, strengthen the communication and interac-
tion among agencies that influence and affect music educa-
tion; and account for an expanding and evolving
professional responsibility in music education for the
future” (Conway 2003, 159). Hollingsworth reported that
the female teachers in her research project felt a disconnect
between their “formal teacher education settings, their per-
sonal beliefs about teaching, and their particular classroom
problems. .. and that they were more apt to leave the profes-
sion because they didn’t have the support they needed for
their own evolving knowledge” (1992, 374). They partici-
pated in collaborative conversation as co-learners who
were able to address “contextually relevant pedagogy,” and
their collaborative work gave them the “connected and sus-
taining relationships necessary for such epistemological
change” (401–02). She also found that teachers in collabo-
rative groups were more inclined to move the focus from
the subject at hand and preferred discussing larger issues by
telling their own stories (380). According to Gruenhagen,
there are studies from the general education literature
regarding collaborative conversations between teachers,
such as the study by Hollingsworth, “but music education
research offers no such examples of collaborative con-
versations” (2008, 10).
The professional needs of music educators are in a state
of flux, schools are changing, the world is changing, and
therefore investigations should be conducted on a continu-
ing basis in order to meet these shifts in the educational
landscape and the ever-changing needs of educators
(Bowles 2002, 40). Bauer and Moehle explain that
“professional development experiences [in music] need to
be designed for a specific population,” because each area of
music teaching faces unique challenges (2008, 72). Sustain-
able music education PLCs should foster an appropriate
combination of contextual conversation, pedagogy, popula-
tion, and setting.
There are differences between PLCs and traditionally rec-
ognized professional development models. Many schools
require teachers to accrue professional development credits
within a certain amount of time; this requirement varies from
district to district and state to state. Spending more time on
professional development will promote a greater change in
teacher practice; however, a limited amount of time is
devoted to professional development activities (Bauer 1999,
51–63). According to Bowles, although the importance of
 26 BATTERSBY AND VERDI
continuing education is recognized globally, music educators
are most often responsible for their own professional develop-
ment required by their school districts. Bowles’s study
revealed that although teachers were interested in short-term
opportunities such as weekend workshops and intensive sum-
mer workshops, few were willing to travel long distances and
pay additional housing fees in order to attend these programs.
More often than not, these types of workshops accommodate
high-priority needs but neglect the needs of more diverse
groups of teachers and their unique circumstances (2002, 40).
Researchers Cochran-Smith and Lytle have proposed
three conceptions of teacher learning (knowledge for prac-
tice, knowledge in practice, and knowledge of practice) that
“drive initiatives intended to promote teacher learning”
(1999, 251). Their construct of “inquiry as stance” pro-
motes community work that encourages teachers to “search
for significant questions as they engage in problem solving”
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015
(293). They contend that “the idea of inquiry as stance is
intended to emphasize that teacher learning needs to be
understood not primarily as individual professional accom-
plishment but as a long-term collective project with a dem-
ocratic agenda” (296).
OTHER MODELS OF COMMUNITIES
Most music teachers are unfamiliar with PLCs or confused
about what they are. According to DuFour, the term PLC
“has been used so ubiquitously that it is in danger of losing all
meaning” (2004, 6). Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder use the
term communities of practice, which they define as “groups
of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion
about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise
in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (2002, 4). We
belong to a number of communities of practice: some we rec-
ognize by a name, and some are invisible. The community
model is very broad and generalized in its scope and can thus
be applied to any type of organization (e.g., the business sec-
tor), but it is not necessarily the best model for a school cul-
ture (Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder 2002, 5).
School administrators often marginalize the arts when
designing professional development activities. Music edu-
cators are often assigned to professional development
groups that are tailored to teachers of other subjects. A
music teacher, for example, may be assigned to a team
meeting that is made up entirely of math specialists. Often-
times, they are unintentionally excluded from the collabora-
tive “team” conversation, which further promotes teacher
isolation (Sindberg and Lipscomb 2005, 53). Music teach-
ers are thus often unable to discuss the specifics of their
day-to-day responsibilities in this type of forum. This repre-
sents a missed opportunity for development.
The National Association for Music Education
(NAfME) has provided online discussion forums for its
members in which music teachers can ask questions and
interact with one another for ideas and suggestions. Accord-
ing to Bauer and Moehle, even though these forums are
heavily promoted by NAfME, no formal analysis on the
ways that music educators use these electronic bulletin
boards has been conducted (2008, 72). Ball and Cohen
explain that current professional development opportunities
for teachers (such as electronic bulletins) are usually ran-
dom, in that there is a disconnect between the meetings and
the classroom, there is no follow-up, and they are not sus-
tainable (1999). NAfME’s Learning Network, powered by
Soundtree Institute, is a wonderful vehicle for learning
about new material and seeing what other music educators
are working on in their schools. There is a small enrollment
fee, and the site offers weekly professional development
webinars and lesson plans.
Music researchers Sherbon and Kish have defined and
discussed distance learning (2005, 36–41), just as Bauer
and Moehle have studied electronic discussion forums;
however, these are not PLCs because they do not meet the
current criteria outlined in such PLC models as those pro-
posed by DuFour or TeachFirst.
Wiki discussion boards have also been developed to
address the issue of isolation and promote greater teacher
interaction. According to a study by Slotwinski, who cre-
ated her own wiki for student teachers, the instrument had
some positive features with regard to the sharing of infor-
mation; however, she stated that although, “as is often seen
in professional online communities of practice, participa-
tion increases over time. .. that was not the case” with this
discussion board (2011, 151). The difference between dis-
cussion boards such as the aforementioned model and
PLCs is that PLCs are instituted in a school district through
mutual agreement, understanding, expectation, commit-
ment, and support. They require active participation and are
established over time.
ONLINE PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
COMMUNITIES (OPLCs) IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Online learning has become very popular and holds poten-
tially viable opportunities for music educators to engage in
professional learning communities. Duncan-Howell con-
ducted a study on the use of online learning for teachers
and concluded that it can be a valuable and purposeful tool
for this group (2010, 338). In another study, Lowry found
that teachers engaging in online learning have considerably
greater rates of interaction than teachers who participated
in face-to-face professional development (2007, 141).
Unfortunately, researchers have not focused on an online
PLC model for music educators to date. There are only a
few small studies that have explored the impact of PLCs on
teaching practice and student learning, and none of them
have explored PLCs in a music ensemble environment
(Armstrong 2010, v). However, there are school districts

that use online professional learning communities in arts
education.
St. Mary’s County Public Schools (SMCPS) in Leonard,
Maryland, is an example of a district that has implemented
a very successful online professional learning community.
Our information was gleaned from an article written by Jeff
Maher, director of teaching, learning, and professional
development in St. Mary’s County, as well as from phone
interviews with both Jeff Dietz, a general music teacher at
Evergreen Elementary School, and Laurel Dietz, a fine arts
teacher (team) leader who is now the supervisor of instruc-
tion for fine arts. A brief background of the county and a
description of how PLCs were conceived and implemented
there are provided in the following. We hope that this
model serves as an example for music administrators,
supervisors, and music teachers in other districts who might
be interested in implementing an online PLC of their own.
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015
St. Mary’s County Public Schools serve approximately
17,500 students in seventeen elementary schools, four mid-
dle schools, and three high schools. PLCs, in conjunction
with other district initiatives, have played an integral role in
SMCPS success. In 2010, student standardized test scores
in this school system were among the highest in the state
for reading and math. Throughout SMCPS, student achieve-
ment gaps narrowed (SMCPS 2012).
SMCPS success did not happen overnight. It took the
commitment and support of administrators and teachers
alike, including strong leadership by school superintendent
Dr. Michael Martirano, who believed in the positive effects
and success that PLCs would bring to his district. Dr. Mar-
tirano was hired in 2005, and since then, the district has
made a committed and sustained effort to implement PLCs
(Maher, interview with author, March 9, 2012).
When PLCs were first initiated in SMCPS, the over 100
music and art faculty found it difficult to meet in their learn-
ing communities on a regular basis. Online PLCs were not
available prior to the onset of the PLC initiative. At the
time, the district was working on a separate initiative, a
software program called Electronic Learning Communities.
This was a platform designed by Johns Hopkins University
in partnership with SMCPS that was intended for file shar-
ing and teacher collaboration (Maher et al. 2010, 24–29).
Music teachers Christina Burroughs and Laurel Dietz rec-
ognized the potential of this software for making PLCs a
reality for their fine arts department. They approached their
supervisor, Lynne Smoot, and district professional devel-
oper Jeff Maher and suggested the creation of online PLCs.
Smoot and Maher took notice and adapted the existing soft-
ware to create the Fine Arts Support Team, or FAST
(Maher, interview with author, March 9, 2012).
FAST allowed teachers to share lesson plans and post
discussions on such topics as curriculum writing and
instructional strategies. More importantly, PLCs were con-
ducted online, which made them accessible and eventually
pervasive. Teachers became involved in learning
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 27
communities that fit their schedules, which made it a suc-
cessful practice that could be more widely adopted (Maher,
interview with author, March 9, 2012).
After four years of PLC participation, the music and arts
teachers continued to demonstrate progress in the areas of
curriculum writing and professional development. The fine
arts faculty met on a weekly basis, resulting in an alignment
of the fine arts curriculum. Teachers from different build-
ings were able to teach students across the district the same
content in the same grade level at the same time (Laurel
Dietz, interview with author, March 22, 2012). Students in
the feeder schools that served the same middle school or
high school arrived with the same knowledge and skills and
were able to succeed in the next grade level. As Jeffrey
Maher put it, “When everyone sings from the same sheet of
music, we get a better sound” (interview with author,
March 9, 2012).
Teachers reported that they had felt more support from
their colleagues since the PLCs and FAST program were
implemented. Evidence of this support is reflected in the
district’s low attrition rate of 6.65 percent (Maher, inter-
view with author, March 26, 2012), compared to the
national average of 12.5 percent (Carroll 2007, 11). PLCs
began as a voluntary initiative; over the course of several
years, all district teachers were expected to be involved in
PLCs as part of an ongoing professional development pro-
cess (Maher, interview with author, March 9, 2012). Teach-
ers continued to meet on a weekly basis, and several in-
service meetings were held throughout the year, which
resulted in high levels of teacher support and low attrition
rates. In addition, the district provided assistance for teach-
ers who were less tech savvy or needed help with the PLC
process (Maher, interview with author, March 26, 2012).
PLCs can be implemented in any music department.
They do not need to be initiated or approved by an adminis-
trator (although including the PLC as part of a teacher’s
schedule secures his or her commitment). Music teachers
can initiate their own PLCs by using free software such as
Google Docs or Moodle. Since Johns Hopkins University
designed the Electronic Learning Community platform,
more software has become available, such as Microsoft’s
SharePoint and BlackBoard; however, as Jeffrey Maher
explained, “The platform is not as important as the process”
(interview with author, March 26, 2012).
CONCLUSION
We advocate for PLCs that are initiated, approved, and sup-
ported by policymakers in order to satisfy the professional
development component of teacher evaluations. If school
policy requires arts specialists to be evaluated according to
various frameworks, then arts teachers need to be afforded
the same professional development opportunities as class-
room teachers. If policymakers value and require
 28 BATTERSBY AND VERDI
professional development for arts specialists as part of
teacher evaluation, then it must be offered, supported, and
sustained. Successful implementation of effective PLCs
requires wholehearted commitment by teachers and admin-
istrators in order to make this reform a reality. Teachers
need to be willing and active participants. PLCs are a long-
term, sustainable commitment, and it may take years to see
results, but the rewards will be mutually beneficial for stu-
dents and teachers.
Professional learning communities are an effective tool
for collaboration among general education teachers, but the
concept has not been widely adopted by the music educa-
tion profession. Music teachers would benefit from sharing
ideas and resources and discussing curriculum development
and lesson planning within their districts. When PLCs are
implemented, student achievement is likely to rise substan-
tially (Louis and Marks 1998, 558).
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015
A major challenge that PLCs present to music educators
is the coordination of a convenient time and place to meet
as a community. OPLCs can emerge as a solution to this
problem by offering Internet-based platforms for music
teachers in different districts who would otherwise have
difficulty meeting as a group. These technological tools can
be used to initiate fundamental changes in a school district
that an online mentor or a random professional develop-
ment session is incapable of providing because of its
removal from the community.
Although there has only been one study that specifically
addresses PLCs in music education to date, we expect that it
will not be long before researchers begin focusing their
attention on providing the data that support the benefits of
implementing these Internet-based platforms for music edu-
cators. Online learning communities, specifically those based
on the PLC model, must be studied further in order to under-
stand the effects of this model on the efficiency, delivery,
and success rates of teachers’ professional development and
their students’ achievement. We submit that PLCs can liber-
ate music teachers from working in isolation and can mini-
mize teacher attrition and burnout. The process of being able
to dispense advice, seek advice and guidance, work through
lesson planning, and reflect makes PLCs an invaluable
resource for teachers at any level, but more importantly for
teachers who find themselves working in isolation. It is also
imperative that music specialists work together within the
district to ensure a cohesive, consistently developing, and
strong music program from pre-K through grade 12.
It is important for the music education profession to stay
current with other education disciplines. Music supervisors
and teachers should consider incorporating online PLCs into
their programs to address teacher isolation, teacher attrition,
professional development, and student achievement with the
ultimate goal of enacting fundamental changes within their
districts. Incorporating this type of collaborative technology
can provide music educators with much-needed tools to sup-
port ongoing professional development that will not only
contribute to their role as lifelong learners, but will benefit
their students through shared best practices.
REFERENCES
Abeles, H., C. Conway, and L. Custodero. 2010. Framing a professional
life: Music teacher development through collaboration and leadership.
In Critical issues in music education: Contemporary theory and prac-
tice, ed. H. Abeles and L. Custodero, 303–19. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
APQC Education. 2009. Best practices in evaluating professional learning
communities (PLCs): Benchmarking report. APQC Education. Accessed
October 16, 2014, at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=
&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.apqceducation.org%2Fknowledge-base%2Fdownload-documents
%2Fdoc_download%2F113–01–9300-final-report-evaluating-professional-
learning-communities&ei=YBvSUdD8GOzJ0AHe54DgDw&usg=>AFQj
CNFKFkEyZ0auDnYmHLs6wW4PyIVkGA&sig2=w9lZ0qkmw7uWEn4
wHnrnrw&bvm=bv.48572450,d.dmQ.
Armstrong, C. M. 2010. Teacher collaboration in music education: The
impact of the DuFour model on music teachers’ attitudes and their
students’ achievement. Ph.D. diss., Oakland University.
Ball, D. L., and D. K. Cohen. 1999. Developing practice, developing prac-
titioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice,
ed. L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes, 3–32. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bauer, W. I. 1999. Music educators and the Internet. Contributions to
Music Education 26 (2): 51–63.
Bauer, W. I., and M. R. Moehle. 2008. A content analysis of the MENC
discussion forums. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Educa-
tion 175 (Winter): 72–84.
Bowles, C. 2002. The self-expressed professional development needs of
music educators. UPDATE: Applications of Research in Music Educa-
tion 21 (2): 35–40.
Carey, K. 2011. The GOP’s plan to take education policy back to the early
1990s. New Republic, October 5, 2.
Carroll, T. 2007. Policy brief: The high cost of teacher turnover. Washing-
ton, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
Clandinin, D. J., and F. M. Connelly. 1995. Teachers’ professional knowl-
edge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., and S. L. Lytle. 1999. Relationships of knowledge and
practice: Teacher learning in communities. In Review of research in edu-
cation, ed. A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson, 24:249–305. Washington,
DC: American Educational Research Association.
Coggshall, J. G., C. Rasmussen, A. Colton, J. Milton, and J. Catherine.
2012. Generating teaching effectiveness: The role of job-embedded pro-
fessional learning in teacher evaluation. Washington, DC: National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. http://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/ED532776.pdf.
Conway, C. M. 2003. Ongoing professional development. In Great begin-
nings for music teachers: Mentoring and supporting new teachers, ed.
C. M. Conway, 151–66. Reston, VA: MENC–The National Association
for Music Education.
Crow, T. 2008. Put the “I” back in team. Journal of Staff Development 29
(3): 4.
Danielson Group. 2013. The framework for teaching evaluation instrument
2013 edition. Accessed July 1, 2013, at http://www.danielsongroup.org/
userfiles/files/downloads/2013EvaluationInstrument.pdf.
DuFour, R. 2004. What is a “professional learning community”? Educa-
tional Leadership 61 (8): 6–11.
———. 2011. Work together but only if you want to. Kappanmagazine.
org 92 (5): 57–61.

Dufour, R., and M. Mattos. 2013. How do principals really improve
schools? Principalship 70 (7): 34–40.
Duncan-Howell, J. 2010. Teachers making connections: Online communi-
ties as a source of professional learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology 41 (2): 324–40.
Faigenbaum, D. H. 2003. Inquiring into practice: Teacher learning in a pro-
fessional community. Ph.D. diss., Stanford University.
Feger, S., and E. Arruda. 2008. Professional learning communities: Key
themes from the literature. Education Alliance at Brown University,
National Staff Development Council. Accessed February 28, 2008, at
http://www.nsdc.org/standards/learningcommunities.cfm.
Feiman-Nemser, S. 2001. From preparation to practice: Designing a con-
tinuum to strengthen and sustain practice. Teachers College Record 103
(6): 1013–55.
Gruenhagen, L. M. 2008. Investigating professional development: Early
childhood music teacher learning in a community of practice. Ph.D.
diss., University of Rochester.
Hollingsworth, S. 1992. Learning to teach through collaborative conversa-
tion: A feminist approach. American Educational Research Journal 29
(2): 373–404.
Downloaded by [West Virginia University] at 03:43 17 April 2015
Hord, S. M. 1997. Professional learning communities: Communities of
continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educa-
tional Development Laboratory.
Hough, B. W., M. W. Smithey, and C. M. Evertson. 2004. Using computer
mediated communication to create virtual communities of practice for
intern teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 12 (3):
361–86.
Krueger, P. J. 2003. Breaking the isolation: Beginning music teacher views
on collaboration. In Great beginnings for music teachers: Mentoring
and supporting new teachers, ed. C. M. Conway, 91–104. Reston, VA:
MENC–The National Association for Music Education.
Learning Sciences International. 2013. Marzano Center teacher and leader
evaluation. Accessed July 1, 2013, at http://www.marzanocenter.com/.
Lortie, D. C. 1975. School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Louis, K. S., and S. D. Kruse. 1995. Professionalism and community: Per-
spectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Louis, K. S., and H. M. Marks. 1998. Does professional community affect
the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring
schools. American Journal of Education 106 (4): 532–75.
Louis, K. S., H. M. Marks, and S. Kruse. 1996. Teachers’ professional
community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research
Journal 33 (4): 757–98.
Lowry, A. E. 2007. Effects of online versus face-to-face professional
development with a team-based learning community approach on
teachers’ application of a new instructional practice. Ph.D. diss., Johns
Hopkins University.
Maher, J., C. Burroughs, L. Dietz, and A. Karnbach. 2010. From solo to
ensemble: Fine arts teachers find a harmonious solution to their isola-
tion. Journal of Staff Development 31 (1): 24–29.
Marzano, R. J. 2013 The Marzano teacher evaluation model. Accessed
October 15, 2013, at http://www.marzanoresearch.com/hrs/leadership-
tools/marzano-teacher-evaluation-model.
Marzano Research Laboratory. 2013. The Marzano teacher evaluation
scales. Accessed June 25, 2013, at http://www.marzanoresearch.com/
documents/MarzanoTeacherEvaluationScales.pdf.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 29
McGuinn, P. 2012. The state of teacher evaluation reform: State education
agency capacity and the implementation of new teacher-evaluation sys-
tems. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Accessed Octo-
ber 16, 2013, at http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/
2012/11/McGuinn_TheStateofEvaluation-1.pdf.
Morrissey, M. S. 2000. Professional learning communities: An ongoing
exploration. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory.
Nicholson, S. A., and N. Bond. 2003. Collaborative reflection and profes-
sional community building: An analysis of preservice teachers’ use of
an electronic discussion board. Journal of Technology and Teacher Edu-
cation 11 (2): 259–79.
Robelen, E. W. 2009. “Race to Top” driving policy action across
states. Education Week 29 (16): 1–7. Accessed October 14, 2013, at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/12/23/16states.h29.html?tkn=
RVPFzM22EIjqP2ntW5Er713F556rbnaM2gjT.
St. Mary’s County Public Schools (SMCPS). 2012. Accessed May 28,
2012, at http://www.smcps.org/.
Sherbon, J. W., and D. L. Kish. 2005. Distance learning and the music
teacher. Music Educators Journal 92 (2): 36–41.
Sindberg, L., and S. Lipscomb. 2005. Professional isolation and the public
school music teacher. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education 166:43–56.
Slotwinski, J. A. 2011. Online communication as a mode of professional
development among student teachers in music education. Ed.D. diss.,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Stoll, L., R. Bolam, A. McMahon, M. Wallace, and S. Thomas. 2006. Pro-
fessional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of
Educational Change 7 (4): 221–59.
Teachscape. 2011. Charlotte Danielson’s framework for teaching sees
record growth as states and districts redefine teacher evaluation [press
release]. Teachscape, June 28. Accessed October 16, 2014, at http://
www.teachscape.com/about/press-and-news/2011/charlotte-danielsons-
framework-for-teaching-sees-record-growth-as-states-and-districts-
redefine-teacher-evaluation.html.
U.S. Department of Education. 2009. Race to the Top program executive
summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Accessed
October 16, 2014, at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/
executive-summary.pdf.
———. 2010. Race to the Top program executive summary. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education. Accessed October 16, 2014, at
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance02232011.pdf.
———. 2011. Guidance on fiscal year 2010 school improvement grants
under Section 1003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Accessed October 16, 2014, at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/
sigguidance02232011.pdf.
Voelkel, R. H. 2011. A case study of the relationship between collective
efficacy and professional learning communities. Ph.D. diss., University
of California, San Diego, and California State University, San Marcos.
Washington County School District. 2011. Board resolution: Professional
learning communities. Accessed October 16, 2014, at http://www4.
washk12.org/district/district_policy/PLC.pdf.
Wenger, E., R. McDermott, and W. M. Snyder. 2002. Cultivating commu-
nities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.