How Schools Thrive - Susan K. Sparks

Скачать книгу

Plus or PLC 2.0. The elements of the PLC process are constant, and while the big ideas and basic tenets don’t change, what does change is the depth at which teams understand, and the fidelity with which they apply, the PLC process to their teams and in their schools.

      During his work in schools, Richard DuFour, one of the architects of the PLC at Work process along with Robert Eaker, often shared that principals frequently asked him about the availability of advanced levels of PLC training. Rick always answered their question same way: “There are no advanced levels of PLC training; we didn’t hold anything back.” He would continue this thought with, “We have shared our best thinking about how to ensure high levels of learning for all; you must now go back to school and do something with what you have learned.” Bob Eaker agreed, adding that while there are no advanced levels of PLC training, he believed that teams can move beyond initial levels to more sophisticated levels of PLC practice.

      We agree with both DuFour and Eaker; there are no advanced levels of PLC training, however, there are advanced levels of PLC practice. So, instead of asking about the next level of PLC workshops or training, a better question for principals would be, “How can we move teams to the next level of PLC practice?” For more and more principals, the answer to this question is found in the idea of coaching collaborative teams around improving their professional practice.

      Eaker explains that teams in the early stages of the PLC process are focused on “getting started” and improve their practice when they begin to “drill deeper” (personal communication, 2018). When teams are getting started, they focus on putting structures in place. They work on things like developing a common language and establishing norms. They might prioritize and unwrap the standards to identify the highest leverage learning targets. Initial steps might also include designing common assessments, using protocols to facilitate productive data conversations, or creating master schedules that allow students to access more time and support without missing direct instruction in another subject. As terrific as all this work might be, Eaker suggests that improving a team’s practice requires that teams drill deeper into the PLC process.

      When teams drill deeper, they work on the same big ideas and basic tenets as other teams that are getting started, but as they drill deeper, these teams acquire new insights, confront new questions, and explore new approaches that may promote higher levels of student learning. For example, teams might shift from analyzing scores generated on traditional assessments to using student work to measure learning or move beyond identifying learning targets to developing learning progressions that describe what proficiency would look like for each of the priority standards. These teams are focusing on the same work as the teams that are getting started, but at a deeper and more sophisticated level.

      Eaker believes that not all teams, just like not all students, will learn and make adjustments in the same way, whether they are just getting started or drilling deeper; some teams will grow further and faster than others. He explains that teams can drill deeper by (1) adding more specificity to their practice, (2) monitoring their progress, and (3) celebrating their improvement efforts (personal communication, 2018). Principals, assistant principals, curriculum supervisors, instructional coaches, department chairs—virtually anyone serving in a coaching role—can accomplish all three of these outcomes when they coach collaborative teams.

      We see it all the time: coached teams are more effective than uncoached teams, and schools go farther faster when the primary goal of coaching is to help collaborative teams, rather than individual teachers, improve their professional practice. For example, the positive impact of coaching teams was apparent during a recent action research project conducted during the 2018–2019 school year at the elementary level in Macomb County, Michigan (Thomas, 2019). The researcher’s purpose was to ascertain the impact coaching teams have on teachers’ efforts to improve their instructional practice. The project was based on the assumption that the more teachers reflect on their instructional practices as a team, the more likely those practices will improve.

      To determine whether coaching has any impact, the researcher observed multiple team meetings, some with a coach present and others without a coach present. The researcher collected data on the number of times teams engaged in self-reflection on their own practices—a hallmark of teams moving from getting started to drilling deeper—and the results were encouraging. When a coach was present in the observed team meetings, teachers reflected on their practice an average of 6.5 times, compared to only 1.6 times when no coach was present. By coaching teams through the PLC process, there is an increased likelihood that teachers will reflect on their practice, thereby increasing the likelihood of improved student achievement.

      Eaker makes a persuasive argument in support of coaching collaborative teams (personal communication, 2018), but anecdotal evidence is also beginning to emerge that supports his belief that schools can and do continue to improve their PLC practice. The findings from this action research would suggest that the best way to advance a team’s PLC practice and move them from getting started to drilling deeper is to consciously coach collaborative teams around the work of a PLC.

      In Amplify Your Impact and again in How Schools Thrive, we propose that using a set of tools, the SIG and the pathways tool, helps support a coach’s work with collaborative teams in a PLC. It is helpful to consider the tools an airline pilot uses to understand the purpose and differences between these two tools.

      Most would agree that being a commercial airline pilot is a complex and sophisticated job that takes years of training and hours of practice to master all of the skills necessary to safely fly an airplane. Most would also agree that lives are on the line if a pilot does not execute his or her job responsibilities correctly. Like a pilot, a teacher works a complex and sophisticated job that takes years of training and hours of practice to master the skills required to ensure that all students learn at high levels. It is also true that for a teacher, lives are also on the line.

      When a pilot prepares to fly a plane full of passengers to a destination, he or she is required to file a flight plan. The flight plan clarifies where the plane is going and ensures the pilot has thoughtfully planned the most efficient and effective route possible. As the pilot creates the plan, he or she must take into consideration a variety of factors such as distance, weather, and the amount of fuel required to reach the destination. An effective flight plan confirms that the pilot has carefully considered all options and alternatives to ensure the plane safely reaches its destination in the shortest amount of time.

      In addition to filing a flight plan, the pilot must run through a preflight checklist to verify that all of the details required to fly the plane safely are in place. This detailed listing includes checking routine but necessary items such as flaps, lights, and electrical circuits, just to name a few. It is interesting that, even after years and years of repeated practice, all pilots must go through this list of particulars, in a prescribed order, checking and double-checking dozens of details.

      Flight plans and a preflight checklist are designed for pilots flying commercial aircraft, but there are similar structures with many of the same characteristics available to educators engaged in the PLC process. The SIG and pathways tools have been instrumental in coaching collaborative teams toward improved effectiveness and, as a result, improved student achievement.

      The SIG we introduce in Amplify Your Impact supports the development of highly effective collaborative teams. The SIG guides teams and provides them with direction as they make progress toward their goal of improving their PLC practice. The most effective principals and coaches have found SIGs to be an excellent way for teams to identify their current reality, clarify their next steps, and build their capacity to execute various elements of the PLC process. Much like the pilot’s flight plan, teams follow the SIG to help them move to the next level of best practice in the shortest amount of time possible.

      In Amplify Your Impact we detail how schools can develop a SIG based on five prerequisites of a PLC (Many, Maffoni, Sparks, & Thomas, 2018).

      1. Educators work in collaborative teams and take collective responsibility for student learning rather than working in isolation.

Скачать книгу