School Improvement for All. Sarah Schuhl
the most important or essential knowledge and skills students need with time to learn them—on a unit-by-unit basis (Marzano, 2003).
3. Teams monitor student learning in an ongoing assessment process that includes team-developed common formative assessments.
4. Teams use the results of common assessments to improve individual practice, build team capacity to achieve goals, and intervene in or extend student learning.
5. The school provides a system of teacher, team, and schoolwide interventions and extensions.
Principals create a loose-tight culture by explicitly communicating (tight) what everyone will do and giving the teachers and collaborative teams the autonomy (loose) to determine how they will get there (DuFour et al., 2016). These five tight elements will increase student learning. We discuss them in further detail throughout this book.
Collaboration is the key to learning for all. It is the “engine that fuels the school improvement process” (Mattos et al., 2016, p. 37). As a part of the collaborative teaming process, teams take collective responsibility for student learning. “Team members work interdependently to achieve common goals for which they are mutually accountable” (Mattos et al., p. 37). Teachers begin to refer to students as our students, not just my students or the students in time-block five. No one individual has all of the knowledge, skill, patience, or insights to meet the needs of all students. It is through collaborative efforts that options and opportunities grow for the students each teacher serves. This process is as much about adult learning as it is about student learning. Student learning will not increase if the capacity of the teachers to deliver specific lessons and implement best practices does not also increase. In fact, “teachers and students go hand-in-hand as learners—or they don’t go at all” (Barth, 2001, p. 23).
Just being a member of a team isn’t enough. Collaborative teams must engage in the right work. The principal and leadership team must define, clarify, and communicate what that work looks like. The four critical questions of a PLC (DuFour et al., 2016) that teams answer on a unit-by-unit basis embody the right work. This is applicable for all schools, no matter if they are involved in the PLC process or not.
1. What do we want students to know and be able to do?
2. How will we know if they learned it?
3. What will we do if they don’t learn it?
4. What will we do for those who have already learned the concept?
Principals need to provide and protect the time for collaborative team meetings during the school day. It is impossible for teams to answer these four questions without the necessary time it takes to discuss each one. Leaders need to structure school schedules so that teams of teachers meet regularly (almost daily) during the regular school day to engage in this work. Scheduling reflects a school’s priorities. If collaboration is a priority, and it should be, then the schedule will reflect the time necessary to actually do the work of the team. Sample school schedules with collaborative team time are accessible at AllThingsPLC under Tools and Resources (www.allthingsplc.info/tools-resources).
It is not enough to tell teams that they must answer the four critical questions of a PLC on a unit-by-unit basis; it is also important to describe the work teams would engage in during this process. The best way to describe, clarify, and monitor the tasks of teams is to delineate the products that they would create from answering the four questions. For example, the team products for question one (What do we want students to know and be able to do?) are the essential or priority standards for this unit, the standards unpacked into learning targets, and descriptions of proficient, above proficient, and below. Figure 1.8 outlines the tasks of collaborative teams, products, and time lines for each of the four questions.
Sources: DuFour et al., 2010; Kramer, 2015.
Figure 1.8: The work of collaborative teams.
Visit go.SolutionTree.com/PLCbooks for a free reproducible version of this figure.
As teams answer question one (What do we expect students to know and be able to do?), they create and implement the guaranteed and viable curriculum on a unit-by-unit basis. Teams answer question two (How will we know if students have learned it?) as they develop common formative assessments to monitor learning. Teams address question three (How will we respond if students have not learned?) as they examine data from common assessments for the purposes of intervening with students. Teams answer question four (How will we respond if students have already learned?) as they develop extension questions and activities that align to the learning targets in the unit. Students extend their learning while others may need extra time and support to learn. As teams answer these targeted and specific questions, they create the products of collaboration that improve schools. The administration and leadership team monitor these actions in an effort to support collaborative teams in the process. We will discuss how to answer these questions in the ensuing chapters.
Finally, clarifying and communicating expectations is never a one-time event; it is an ongoing process of building shared knowledge as an entire staff, in team meetings, and one conversation at a time. It requires different levels of support for different groups of people. No one way will work for the entire staff. The important point is that the principal and learning team must speak with one voice. Everyone must communicate the same clear, consistent message over and over again. As each year begins, the principal, leadership team, and collaborative teams revisit and further clarify their expectations. This is the continuous-improvement cycle in action.
As we previously stated, leadership for learning is a combination of exerting pressure and providing support. Principals practice reciprocal accountability in both their words and actions (Elmore, 2004). This means that whenever a leader holds others accountable for completing a task or goal, the leader is accountable for providing the resources necessary for success. The leadership team is the vehicle for modeling the expectations and providing the supports necessary so that every team can experience success. If the goal is highly effective and efficient collaborative teams, the question becomes, What will they need to perform at this level? It is certain they will need sufficient time to meet, clear direction regarding the work to be done, ongoing feedback, and training and resources necessary to help them succeed at what they are being asked to do. Leadership for learning develops people and harnesses the power within the organization to increase student learning.
The key to charting a course focused on learning is to create a common vision together and commit to each other to act and hold each other accountable for engaging in that work. Leaders demonstrate what they value by those things they choose to monitor, celebrate, and confront (DuFour et al., 2016). Choose the most important factors presented in this chapter that will improve student achievement at your school based on your current reality and needs. Be willing to address an obvious problem and hold people accountable for the collective commitments and core practices that are essential to improved results. What you permit, you promote. Be intentional and purposeful in promoting the right work.
Reflect and Take Action
The rubric in figure 1.9 shows levels in charting a course focused on learning. Look at the rubric to determine staff strengths and next steps to plan the actions necessary to improve learning.