PLC Topic Brief FINAL - Jacobson

Running
Head:

PLCS:

FOSTERING
COLLABORATIVE
SUCCESS
1

Professional Learning Communities:
Fostering Collaborative Success
Lori Jacobson
Southern Utah University
Author Note
Lori Stevens Jacobson is a graduate student in Southern Utah University’s Administrative
Licensure Program. Lori currently works as a Keyboarding Specialist for Nebo School District,
Spanish Fork, Utah.
Much appreciation is given to her colleagues in the field of education and mentors who
have influenced her work. She especially wishes to thank her sister, Dr. Patti Mortenson,
Elementary Education Director of the Pocatello School District, for her expertise and advice.
She also wishes to thank her dedicated and supportive husband, Hans Jacobson, for his unfailing
faith in her abilities and his constant support of her in the pursuit of personal goals.

PLCS: FOSTERING COLLABORATIVE SUCCESS 2

Abstract
This paper is an exploration into Professional Learning Communities. Its purpose is to
provide perspective on the historical and political framework which initiated the need for drastic
educational reform and explains and shares examples of why PLCs may be an answer for
improving student success. The paper is written for future administrators and explains what a
Professional Learning Community (PLC) is, the basic questions all PLCs strive to answer, and
finally how administrators can play a strategically central role in fostering the healthy
collaboration needed to ensure and systemize an organization’s success in terms of student
outcomes. Lastly, it outlines specific tactics administrators can use to promote a culture of
collaboration that will ultimately benefit students.
Key words: professional learning communities, collaboration, team building, student
improvement, results-oriented education


Professional Learning Communities: Fostering Collaborative Success
Introduction
For individuals considering a career in education, dynamic changes to the educational
system are apt to cause a fair degree of trepidation. The bar has clearly been raised and
institutions engaged in the process of nurturing learners are experimenting and refining
knowledge structures and teaching practices with hopes of successfully gleaning improved
student results. The purpose of this paper is to detail a trend which continues to show
quantifiable results, both in student learning and teacher improvement: Professional Learning
Communities. The paper is written for an audience of future administrators and begins by
providing a brief summary of the historical and political framework which called for educational
reform. The evidence included validates the belief that effective PLCs impact student learning.
The paper will clarify what a PCL is, how to ensure successful performance of a PLC, and
finally shares specific team-building tactics administrators can use to foster effective
collaboration.
Research and Literature Foundation
Historical Setting for Educational Reform
A Nation at Risk (1983). Our society has changed dramatically over the past 50 years,
and with those changes comes sweeping restructuring efforts of our nation’s educational
infrastructure. The wake-up call resulting from A Nation a Risk (a study done by the National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) has left in its wake a society clamoring to find
ways to address threats to our nation’s global competitiveness. As policymakers at state levels
reviewed findings of the study, they mandated changes in an effort to stunt the disconcerting
progression of our failing U.S. educational system. On the heels of this suggestive report, the
Federal government stepped into the arena of educational modification, something they had


previously avoided, and passed invasive laws which required massive changes to public
education.
No Child Left Behind (2001). With a one-of-a-kind national directive handed down in
the form of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, the stakes were raised and education
with limited accountability and failing results was replaced by the following: clearly defined
state standards, a call for increased accounting of student results, requirements for “highly
qualified” teachers, school choice options, and the potential loss of federal funding if results
didn’t meet the “annual yearly progress” standard. Nothing in public policy has had the daunting
impact on our educational system like the 2001 NCLB Act. One of the intended outcomes of
NCLB is to guarantee that all students learn and acquire the knowledge and information
mandated by state policies. Additionally, a key component and goal of NCLB is to address
“achievement gaps” that clearly existed in the public annual test scores between advantaged
students and subgroups of disadvantaged and minority students (Voelkel,
2001).
With that brief historical summary, key players in the educational process—government
policy makers, foundation experts and leaders, administrators, and teachers—have been working
to find innovative solutions to advance learning opportunities for our nation’s students. To
ensure that America will stay strong and keep it’s previously dominant role in our global society,
drastic and inventive changes had to be found.
A Promising Results-Oriented Option: Professional Learning Communities
One of the most encouraging considerations for those working in the trenches of
education is a design which shows promise for promoting and facilitating the attainment of
measurable growth: Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Individuals currently involved
in education, or students pursuing studies related to education at any level, should have a sound
understanding and grasp of the fundamental strategy and potential promise of the PLC design.
The basic idea behind a PLC is summed up by the Learning Forward (formerly NSCD)


Association’s purpose: “Every educator engages in effective professional learning every day so
every student achieves” (Slabine, p. 1).
Many educational organizations have undertaken the task of finding ways to encourage
increased and ongoing collaboration. Unfortunately, sometimes the relationships found in
schools making efforts to collaborate show little resemblance to empowering relationships
actually found in highly effective schools. In Andrig’s (2013) article in the American Educator,
he effectively summarized the findings of rigorous studies conducted by the University of
Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research which was published in 2010. The
publication, Organizing Schools for Improvement (2010) was taken from 400 Chicago
elementary schools and testing data from 1990 to 2005 and included extensive survey data of the
stakeholders in the schools. The findings demonstrated that the most effective schools were the
ones that “had developed an unusually high degree of ‘relationship trust’ among their
stakeholders” (Andrig, p. 2-3). It appears that just because professionals were collaborating and
talking, the results and tests scores of students were not measurably impacted until those
relationships built solid trust in the collaborative process. Andrig (2013) further outlined five
features to advance student achievement and collaboration as summarized below:
1. A system in which meaningful teacher involvement coordinates curriculum, study
materials, and assessments.
2. A system which promotes professional capacity of teachers which includes making
teachers classroom work public for examination by colleagues and/or external
consultants so as to enable support and guidance for teachers.
3. Strong parent-community-school ties; an integrated support network of collaborative
efforts.
4. Student-centered learning climates that respond when students experience difficulties
in learning.


5. Leadership that cultivates relationships between parents, teachers, community
members to invest in student learning and share in responsibility for that learning.
The study showed that “Schools with strong rankings on most of those traits were 10 times more
likely to improve than schools weak in the majority of those capacities” (Andrig p. 3).
Another study conducted by the NCEA (National Center for Educational Achievement),
which is a division of the company that produces the ACT college-entrance exam, also found
similar results. They concluded the following practices as key when researching 26 public
schools with a high number of low-income students that encompassed a five-state area on gains
in math and science scores: a high degree of engagement between administrators and teachers;
embedded time in the workweek for teacher collaboration to improve instruction; an openness
among teachers to being observed and advised; close monitoring of testing data to identify where
both students and teachers needed additional support; and extensive outreach efforts to parents
and community groups and social service providers (Anrig, 2013-2014).
Though the studies mentioned are but a small sampling of the ever-increasing data pool
to support the effectiveness of PLC’s and the need for collaboration, it’s clear that effective
collaborative efforts which include the above mentioned strategies are crucial for demonstrating
student improvement. Collaboration must include some, if not all, of the components described
above in order to be effective in terms of student results. Collaboration and building a
professional learning community environment are also standards that must be met according to
Praxis and ISLLC Standards. Praxis Standard II, “Teaching and Learning,” outlines the
obligation of administrators to “create structures, procedures, and relationships that provide time
and resources for a collaborative teaching and learning community” (ETS, 2012). Likewise, the
ISSLC Policy Standards require administrators to “nurture and sustain a culture of collaboration,
trust, learning, and high expectations” (ISLLC, 2008).


A Closer Look at PLCs
Definition. In a research review and leadership project commissioned by The Wallace
Foundation, the authors propose that a professional learning community is “. . .the establishment
of a school-wide culture that makes collaboration expected, inclusive, genuine, ongoing and
focused on critically examining practice to improve student outcomes” (Leithwood, Louis,
Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004, p. 66). This statement gets right to the heart of how and why
PLCs can make a difference: improvement of student outcomes. According to the authors of the
book, Learning By Doing (2006), the overuse of the term “professional learning community” has
become watered down (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). The lack of preciseness in its
definition can be part of the reason the use of PLCs have, for some educational systems, been
difficult and sometimes unsustainable. Author Mike Schmoker wrote, “clarity precedes
competence” when he noted that there is some ambiguity in the very term’s use (Schmoker,
2004, p. 85). Until organizations, and the leaders of those organizations, clearly understand and
grasp the tactics necessary for collaborative results that have the desired impact on learning, they
will fail to achieve the benefits of meaningful, quality discussions and result-building
relationships. Richard DuFour summarizes the state of PLCs:
The professional learning community model has now reached a critical juncture, one well
known to those who have witnessed the fate of other well-intentioned school reform
efforts. In this all-too-familiar cycle, initial enthusiasm gives way to confusion about the
fundamental concepts driving the initiative, followed by the inevitable implementation
problems, the conclusion that the reform has failed to bring about the desired results,
abandonment of the reform, and the launch of a new search for a promising initiative
(DuFour, 2004, p. 6).
Current and future administrators must have clarity when it comes to what a PLC is, how to
establish, foster, support, and reap the rewards of effective PLCs and collaborative efforts. In the
same article, DuFour (2004) explains that successful PLCs focus on “3 Big Ideas:” (a) ensuring
that students learn; (b) a culture of collaboration (an end to isolation); and (c) a focus on results.


Clarity and Focus for PLCs: 3 Big Ideas
Ensuring that Students Learn. The days of making sure that teachers are “teaching”
students is a thing of the past. The essence of PLCs today is a focus on student “learning.”
There are four basic questions PLCs must determine: One, what do we want students to learn?
Two, how will we determine if they have learned it? Three, what will we do for students who
didn’t learn it? Four, what will we do for students who did learn it? (DuFour, 2004) It’s an
interesting phenomena when it comes to understanding PLCs as a focus on “learning” for student
success also requires and demands a focus on “learning” for teachers and others involved in the
educational process as well. In the book, Leaders of Learning (2006), the authors explain:
It is imperative to note that the emphasis placed on student learning in a PLC does not
diminish the importance of teaching. In fact, the primary reason to become a PLC is to
impact and improve teaching. Too many school reforms have swirled around but not
within the classroom. The PLC process is specifically intended to create conditions that
help educators become more skillful in teaching because great teaching and high levels of
learning go hand in hand (Dufour & Marzano, 2011, p. 23).
It is clear that in order for students to learn, adults in the organization must also be
learning. Put simply, everyone must focus on continuous learning. This was advised by Dennis
Sparks (2005) who wrote: “Well-implemented professional learning communities are a powerful
means of seamlessly blending teaching and professional learning in ways that produce complex,
intelligent behavior in all teachers” (Sparks, p. 9).
A Culture of Collaboration. Across the nation in schools and districts, PLCs and other
great ideas or initiatives are presented and started, only to find many professional educators
viewing them as the latest educational trend, something that will come and go. It’s critical for
administrators and future administrators to understand the PLC process is not just a new
“program” but a long-term, permanent change in the way a school does business—the business
of education for advancement—for students and those invested in the process. Richard S. Smith


describes this danger when sharing his experience as an administrator trying to implement a PLC
in Sanger Unified School District in California:
It didn't take us long to realize that distributing new copies of a book and declaring "we
will" doesn't lead to meaningful change. We needed to build a guiding coalition of
leaders who understood the process and the outcomes we were seeking. It also became
apparent that, in the history of the district, initiatives had come and gone with little or no
impact. The belief that "this too shall pass" was not stated, but it operated as a widely
held belief based on past experiences (Smith, 2012).
In order for PLCs to be successful, a culture of collaboration has to become embedded in the
systems and culture of a school. In order for constructive collaboration to occur, there has to be
an over-arching attitude of interdependency and common goals for all.
An End to Isolation. One of the problems of teaching in the past has been that of
isolation: “isolation is the enemy of improvement” (Elmore, 2003, p. 67). For years teachers
have hunkered down in their own classrooms and used their individual personal power, learning,
and information to educate students. That is old-style teaching and lacks empowerment and
enrichment for educators. The key to teacher growth and improvement is the sharing of ideas
with colleagues, or in other words, collaborating. In an article entitled Teachers in the lead,
authors Stegall and Linton explain what collaboration can bring to a school:
As teachers come together with colleagues to share best practices, analyze student data,
and plan, they break down the traditional barriers that exist in many public schools.
Teachers are no longer isolated from peers; they become a community of professionals
working toward common goals. The conversations that occur and the products that are
created in collaborative team meetings spill over into hallways, classrooms, and the
cafeteria. As people genuinely learn to hear each other, even when they disagree, they
must learn to listen with openness. Colleagues come to depend on each other and
appreciate the dialogue and ideas generated in those community meetings. This
reconnection of community allows team members to focus less on complaining and more
on what they’re trying to accomplish (Stegall & Linton, p. 64).
Collaboration is more effective when the following seven guidelines, as described by DuFour
and Marzano (2011) outlined in Leaders of Learning, are followed:
1. Organize staff into meaningful teams.
2. Provide teams with time to collaborate.
3. Provide supportive structures that help groups become teams.


4. Clarify the work teams must accomplish.
5. Monitor the work of teams and provide direction and support as needed.
6. Avoid shortcuts in the collaborative team process.
7. Celebrate short-term wins, and confront those who do not contribute to their teams
(DuFour & Marzano, 2011, pp. 70-86).
A Focus on Results. With an understanding that the end result of effective teaching is
student acquisition of knowledge and demonstration of competency, it’s crucial that PLCs focus
on results. There are basically three important components that help keep the focus on results:
First, set goals and establish what will be measured to ensure learning took place. Second,
gather and analyze data. And third, use the data to identify specific needs of individual learns
(DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Teaching, testing, and looking at a final percentage on one test at
the end of a chapter or unit will no longer be adequate.
Formative and Summative Assessment. One aspect of assessing student competency
relates to either formative or summative assessments of a learning outcome. Formative
assessments are given often, are generally smaller or shorter in length, and break down a multi-
faceted learning objective into smaller concepts. For example, a chapter can be broken into
specific concepts and then regular assessments should be designed to determine the status of
students’ understanding periodically throughout the chapter on concepts identified. This process
is referred to as “checking for understanding.” Checking for understanding is a high-yield
strategy that helps promote learning; it should be regular, ongoing, and informative. To be
useful, these checks for understanding should be almost “rapid-fire”—good teachers are
constantly and consistently checking for understanding and student comprehension. For a more
cumulative picture of student learning, summative assessments can provide an overall view of a
multi-faceted learning target (multiple concepts) and provide a comprehensive determination of
student success on a particular group of objectives.
After assessing student learning, teachers then collaborate and analyze data to determine
what steps need to be taken to help students who didn’t learn and enrich students with more


opportunities for learning who did learn. That process of collaboration, if truly effective, will
also determine what needs exist that might help an educator more effectively teach the targeted
concepts. The gap from teaching to learning may not be the sole responsibility of the student, it
may in fact be something lacking in teacher content knowledge, strategies used, assessment
weakness, or a multitude of other variables that can directly affect the level of student
understanding. Herein lies the splendor of the PLC concept: learning impairments can be traced
back to sources of instruction or student challenges through healthy, trusting, and empowering
teamwork during the collaborative process. Whatever caused or impacted the negative learning
gap can then be addressed, hopefully corrected, and ultimately result in future measurable gains
in student learning. On the flip side, when data reveals scores from a particular class showing
impressive results, collaboration might focus on what that teacher did to ensure learning and
share tips, tactics, and suggestions for other colleagues teaching the same content.
Specific Techniques for Fostering Productive and Healthy Collaboration
Effective collaboration requires certain skills that allow the process to be meaningful and
impactful. Some believe these skills are natural and inherent for team members. Often,
however, that isn’t the case. In order to garner benefits from team members collaborating, the
interaction must be positive and healthy. Effective administrators must be watching for healthy
dialogue and productive results from team collaboration. In their book, Leading By Design,
authors Erkens and Twadell (2011) explain that oftentimes groups are created with the
assumption that collaboration will be “straightforward and intuitive.” They purport that making
such an assumption is neither realistic nor helpful. Due to human nature, collaboration will most
definitely include the use of emotions and conflict. The authors further explain that healthy
teams are responsive and adaptive to both the needs of the individuals and the work of the team.
They suggest that the process of ensuring healthy and productive teams include three steps:
“engineering the team, monitoring the team, and intervening as necessary.”


Engineering the Team
Good leaders don’t assume that teams will happen naturally. A supportive and effective
leader will strive to foster healthy attitudes towards team members; they set the example, model,
and expect maturity, competency and authenticity from team members. When those traits are
exhibited and demonstrated, the success and progress of the team are significantly enhanced.
Strong leadership guides the creation of teams, sets a purpose and mission for their efforts, and
works to hold members accountable. Leadership must work to build beliefs and the culture
necessary to help change beliefs. One of the suggestions made by the authors is to take a
proactive approach and create team “norms.” These norms can be either explicitly stated or
implied for both personal conduct and interactions during collaborative meetings. Some
examples of such norms are: punctual attendance by team members, an expectation that
everyone contributes, all cell phones shut off during the meeting, and even agreeing upfront that
sometimes they will need to “agree to disagree.” Establishing such norms will facilitate
productivity during engagement time (Erkens & Twadell, 2011).
After norms are established and agreed upon by team members, the next step is to require
members to strive to live by the norms and hold those accountable if someone breaks or
disregards a norm. There needs to be a plan established upfront such that a violation can be
respectfully and adequately addressed. Once the norms are established, a good leader models
those behaviors in all interactions with group members. Other types of norms that should be
considered are: honesty, trust, respect for each other and each other’s opinions, a positive
attitude, pausing to genuinely listen to each other, seeking and requesting feedback, a proactive
problem solving attitude, use of an agenda, data dialogue protocols, role clarity, and shared
facilitation (Erkens & Twadell, 2011).


Monitor for Success
Another suggestion in Leading By Design (2011) is to monitor for success. Leaders
must constantly be on the lookout for signs that a team is functioning effectively by monitoring
progress and output. After teams are given direction and know what they are working to
accomplish, strong leaders will find ways of monitoring the progress and/or success of the
endeavors. Such monitoring could include the following; “observations, interviews, round table
discussions, surveys, and so on” (Erkens & Twadell, p. 37). Each of these forms of monitoring
may be perceived by team members as showing a lack of trust and confidence in a team’s ability
to succeed. Though the authors explain that these are common misconceptions, they “submit
that these assumptions are based on an old paradigm of monitoring as evaluation, rather than
monitoring as formative assessment to support in their learning” (Erkens & Twadell, p. 39).
Successful leaders likewise encourage opportunities for teams to “self-monitor” (Erkens
& Twadell, p. 39). Leaders may choose to monitor through the use of anonymous team surveys,
or formal discussions with team members both individually and collectively to stay abreast of the
team’s focus, activity, progress, and success.
Intervening for Success
There are often problems with group collaborations and sometimes those problems will
need to be addressed. Some leaders prefer to allow team members to “work it out” when there
are issues or problems. A good leader, however, monitors the group enough to know when
intervention is required. Strong leadership can “isolate the variables and identify the specific
issues and challenges to offer appropriate support for each team’s success” (Erkens &
Twadell, p. 43).
By providing guidelines, modeling effective team interaction, engineering, monitoring,
and intervening as needed, efficacious leaders will support their organization’s collective
capacity to foster engaging and healthy group work which will ultimately impact student success.


Field Activity
After completing two semesters (200 hours) of administrative internships, the opportunity
to observe, discuss and experience the collaborative process has been informative. At a junior
high internship experience, the mentor principal had elected to be actively involved and attend
the math department’s weekly collaboration meeting. After observing and discussing the PLC
process at this particular school, it was clear that each department was operating at different
levels of collaboration and the process of using data to drive discussions was just beginning to be
explored.
The mentor principal, who wisely chose to be actively involved in the math department
due to her expertise in that discipline, had set a goal and engineered the math team to be an
“example” team as far as using data to drive collaborative efforts. The principal had engineered
a fairly specific process which included everything from paying math teachers for summer
collaboration time to hiring a school data specialist (using Trustland funds) to process the data.
The principal expected the math teachers to set the example for other departments in analyzing
data for teacher improvement. The math teachers had separated curriculum objectives (using the
new math core curriculum) into smaller concepts and jointly prepared weekly “concept quizzes”
which identified specific concepts from the chapter to use for testing students’ knowledge. No
longer were they teaching and testing at the end of the chapter, but they were “checking for
understanding” using cumulative assessments throughout each chapter. It is clear from the
ISLLC standards for administrators that school leaders are expected to “develop assessment and
accountability systems to monitor student progress” (ISLLC, 2008); this was being accomplished
as the administrator provided collaboration and allocated funding which allowed the math
teachers to create better assessments for monitoring student (and teaching) progress.
Testing results were then given to the data specialist to manipulate and provide visual
representations and statistical information comparing the different teacher’s class results. This


was a good model of the Praxis standard which requires good leaders to “promote mutual
benefits and distribution of responsibility and accountability among the teaching and learning
community” (ETS, 2012). These teachers and their students will benefit by teachers taking
responsibility for what is taught, what is learned, and their willingness to be accountable for both
the teaching and learning by sharing and analyzing assessment results.
When working with the newly hired data specialist, it was clear that she was not
proficient in organizing and manipulating data for practical use. It was a positive experience to
be able to provide assistance and training to her and establish a pattern and template which she
could use to collect, input, manipulate, and visually represent the data. Participating in that
process was a great learning experience and hopefully helped prepare the data specialist for her
future responsibilities in helping teachers “crunch the numbers” for making data-driven
decisions.
Theory to Practice
The opportunity to observe the junior high principal during collaboration meetings with
her math department was invaluable modeling. She skillfully monitored discussions of the
carefully selected and engineered “lead team” for data-driven practices and intervened as needed
to provide additional leadership for team members’ efforts. She also helped interpret the data,
and showed helpful support for the team “norm.” A major lesson taught by her example was her
ability to “champion” team members and celebrate successes, both individually and collectively,
as she encouraged excellent work and fostered dedication to the collaboration process for
improved student results in the math classes. Her “champion” attitude was a powerful example
of how an administrator can foster healthy and productive collaboration by building positive
relationships.


Relevance to Professional Goals
All current and future administrators will be expected to be “education leaders” and
promote rigorous curriculum and instruction in a school setting. As an administrator, a required
professional goal will be to pass the Praxis exam for Educational Leadership: Administration
and Supervision. Part of that exam will focus on “building a professional culture” and
“continuous improvement toward the vision and goals” of the institution. This progress of
researching, analyzing, writing, and learning from completing this topic brief assignment and
combining it with in-school experiences has helped with preparation for that exam.
Why this is Important for PreK–12 Students
Collaboration is key to teacher and student growth and progress. Due to laws passed and
requirements put on all schools in this country, PLCs, if they function effectively, have the
potential to help meet the demand for the government-mandated closure of student achievement
gaps as well as show annual yearly progress (AYP). If we want to prepare students for the
challenging world they live in, successfully teaching is imperative. Regardless of the
requirements of our country’s laws, however, administrators and educators at all levels have a
moral responsibility to strive for excellence as we educate our students.
Conclusion
After a review of literature and research on the topic of PLCs, it’s clear that successful
administrators need to engineer, monitor and intervene as needed during the collaborative
process. As administrators, leaders will need to design, foster, and champion the success of this
process in schools in order to be successful. As Anrig (2013) summarizes in his book: “. . .
because virtually everyone shares an interest in better student outcomes, it is convenient that the
best way to improve test scores appears to be getting administrators, teachers, and other
stakeholders to work more collaboratively together.” That must be the goal for all current and
future administrators; to make the collaborative process convenient and measurably effective.


References
Anrig, G. (2013). Beyond the Education Wars: Evidence that Collaboration Builds Effective
Schools. (Kindle Cloud Version) Retrieved from https://read.amazon.com
Anrig, G. (2013-2014). “Cultivating Collaboration: The Science behind Thriving Labor-
Management Relationships.” American Educator, Winter. Retrieved from All Things
PLC website www.allthingsplc.info.
Council of Chief State School Officers. 2008. ISLLC Educational Leadership Policy Standards,
2008. Washington, DC. NBEA.

Retrieved
from
http://npbea.org/wp-‐
content/uploads/2012/06/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf
DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a Professional Learning Community? Educational Leadership.
DuFour, R. & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of Learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing, Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Educational Testing Service. (2012). The Praxis Study Companion, Educational Leadership:
Administration and Supervision. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/s/praxis
Elmore, R. (2003). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.
Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Erkens, C. & Twadell, E. Leading By Design. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004) How leadership influences
student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. University
of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org.
National Center for Educational Achievement. (2009, January). Core Practices in Math and
Science: An Investigation of Consistently Higher Performing School Systems in Five
States. Austin, TX: NCEA.


Schmoker, M. (2004). Learning communities at the crossroads: A response to Joyce and Cook.
Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 84-89.
Slabine, N. (2011). Evidence of Effectiveness. Retrieved from Learning Forward website
http://learningforward.org
Smith, W. (2012). “Culture of Collaboration.” School Administrator, 69(1), 14-20.
Sparks, D. (2005). The final 2%: What it takes to create profound change in leaders. Journal of
the National Staff Development Council, 26(2), 8-15.
Stegall, D. (2012). Teachers in the lead. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(7), 62-65.
Voelkel, R. (2011). A Case Study of the Relationship between Collective Efficacy and
Professional Learning Communities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ALLTHINGPLC electronic Articles & Research Archive
http://www.allthingsplc.info/articles-research

PLC Topic Brief FINAL - Jacobson

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (10)

Ähnlich wie PLC Topic Brief FINAL - Jacobson

Ähnlich wie PLC Topic Brief FINAL - Jacobson (20)

PLC Topic Brief FINAL - Jacobson